Main Menu

Lakin lawyer lies on CNN

“This could be over tonight.”

Lakin’s attorney talks while Lakin relaxes. Click for video.

It infuriates me no end how a a clever lawyer can say something that appears to be one thing, but is actually something else. If infuriates me because anyone who does this demonstrates disdain for his listener. He is saying: “I am clever and you are too stupid to see what I am doing.” Lakin’s lawyer, Paul Jensen, tried to imply things that were false by clever irrelevancies and innuendo, but he told one outright whopper:

In the state of Hawaii there’s a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of Hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, at any age, by going back and filling out a form.

Jensen then cited HRS Β§ 338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State.

That law does not allow “anyone” to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate. It is limited to applicants who can prove to the director that “the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” So he lied. He said “anyone” but of the billions ofΒ  people in the world, it only applies to a handful of Hawaii residents who give birth to children out of state. I am not talking about whether or not the statute fits President Obama. I am simply saying that he lied about the statute. He is a lawyer and he waved a piece of paper in his hand representing it as a copy of the statute. It is not reasonable to believe that he was mistaken. He lied.

Now someone might argue that while technically false, since Stanley Ann Dunham was indeed a resident of Hawaii for a year prior to President Obama’s birth that the law applied anyway and that the lie was harmless. Not so. The law HRS 338-17.8 was not passed until 1982. President Obama’s birth registration was filed August 8, 1961. A registration could not have been filed in 1961 under this (or any) Hawaiian statute.Β  Not only did Lakin’s attorney lie, but he tried to trick the viewer into thinking the statute he cited was relevant.

Birtherism is founded on lies just like this one. It’s evil like this that put the fire in my belly to build this web site and keep it going.

Actually he told another whopper: “this could be over tonight”.

Lakin himself came across as sincere but clueless. Somebody else is pulling his strings. Go HERE to see photos of what looks like Paul Jensen assisting Terry Lakin in incriminating himself.

, , ,

569 Responses to Lakin lawyer lies on CNN

  1. avatar
    Tomtech May 7, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    That wasn’t the only lie. Claiming Obama can “end this” by producing his “long form” birth certificate is a lie.

    The charges against Larkin will still be prosecuted and nothing Obama ca do will end that since the military needs to show that a service member can’t ignore orders based on an Internet rumor.

    The birthers have multiple fall back positions if a new document is produced.

    1) It’s a fake.
    2) He doesn’t have an American father.
    3) He had foreign citizenship and loyalties. (British, Kenyan, and Indonesian)
    4) He gave up his citizenship.
    5) Blacks weren’t full citizens and can’t be “Article II natural born citizens”.

    When people decide they are right, no facts can challenge their opinions.

  2. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen May 8, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    “This could be over tonight”? So if President Obama produced his “vault copy” with the footprint, you would then plead guilty to the charges? ’cause you ain’t getting another chance to obey your orders, birfoon.

  3. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    it appears that Lakin completely fell for the lawyers bull pupu, really sad. Only one way this can go, DOWN!

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    If I had Jensen on the witness stand for an hour, I could tear him apart. Of course, Lakin will never get to try his “birther defense” before the court martial.

  5. avatar
    misha May 8, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    That’s exactly correct. Refusing to follow an order should be harshly dealt with; it is nothing less than mutiny.

  6. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    TRUE, but it;s evident that Lakin believes all his lawyer claims, he thinks he will be saved by being the hero that brought Obama down. Lakin can avoid prison by claiming insanity, thats it. A sad way to end his career!

  7. avatar
    nbC May 8, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Sad to see someone throw it all away. At least the lawyer appears to be coming out a ‘winner’, if the $500k estimate provided by Lakin’s supporters is accurate.
    They always do.

  8. avatar
    Hawaiiborn May 8, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    missed it, but thanks for covering it. Saw a video of it to catch up. Good on AC for attacking the claims of the 2bit lawyer, but wish he could have had the ammunition against the Hawaii statute (like that it was passed in 1982)

    And of course, another lie of Jensen, is that if you’re born out of the country, and registered your birth in Hawaii, that COLB will reflect the country of birth.

    As I related before, a good friend of mines while growing up in Hawaii, was born in the Philippines (both parents were immigrants on work visas to live in Hawaii). The entire family then moved back to Hawaii when he was 3 years old; with the Philippines Birth Certificate, they registered his birth in Hawaii, and on his Hawaii COLB, it states Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines. At 14 years of age, he and his parents took the path to Naturalization, and they became citizens a year later. His COLB still says that he was born in Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.

  9. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    I also had a neighbor born in the Philippines and had her birth registered in Hawaii, her BC states born in Iloilo, Philippines (by the way she is a muslim)

    that lawer mislead and lied, poor Lakin is going down, this idiot is totally unprepared for his defense.

  10. avatar
    Saint James May 8, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    My mom was born in Kau, Hawaii. My grandparents were listed as filipinos. My mom is a natural born citizen!

    The birthers are dropping like flies…turkey shoot!

  11. avatar
    Lupin May 8, 2010 at 2:17 am #

    I have zero sympathy for Lakin; I hope the miserable traitor rots in Leavenworth.

    That said, some lied on CNN??? Heavens! Vapors! Shades of Darth Cheney!

  12. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    Anderson Cooper was an asshole. He tried to incriminate Lakin by asking him questions. Lakin could not say much and he has to talk through his lawyer because Lakin has the right to remain silent. Cooper touted a completely invalid Certification of Live Birth.(No Certificate #) The lawyer did mention the modern statute about getting BC to prove his point but the statutes in 1961 were even more lax and again the possibility that Obama’s birth was merely registered as being born in Hawaii while Obama was actually born in Kenya has not been ruled out. Addition, Obama still have not released the BC and won’t release it and no coorborating evidence has yet to be shown that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.

    Anderson Cooper didn’t give Lakin and his lawyer a chance to present their case.

    If it was me, I would have immediately canceled the interview until I had a chance to present my case.

    Cooper should have known better than to ask Lakin tough questions when Lakin has the Right to Remain Silent.

  13. avatar
    BatGuano May 8, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    has lakin figured out yet that his lawyer specializes in dog bite cases ?

  14. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    Personally Lakin should have blown Anderson Cooper out of the water, but Anderson Cooper wouldn’t let them present their case and kept interupting. I think if Lakin gets another interview, a definite rule should be established that Lakin and his Lawyer have 3 to 5 minutes of uninterupted dialog and if the news commentator interrupts the interview is halted instantly. I am sure that Cooper’s intent was to try interrupt as much as possible as prevent the facts from getting out and to attempt marginlize the issue.

  15. avatar
    Hawaiiborn May 8, 2010 at 3:08 am #

    Personally Lakin should have blown Anderson Cooper out of the water, but Anderson Cooper wouldn’t let them present their case and kept interupting.I think if Lakin gets another interview, a definite rule should be established that Lakin and his Lawyer have 3 to 5 minutes of uninterupted dialog and if the news commentator interrupts the interview is halted instantly.I am sure that Cooper’s intent was to try interrupt as much as possible as prevent the facts from getting out and to attempt marginlize the issue.

    No, Anderson’s questions were not being answered by Lakin. He wanted Lakin to answer his questions; his stupid lawyer kept on answering for him. It was Lakin who disobeyed direct orders, a “crime’ he admits to, so there is nothing to defend here. His “lawyer” didn’t need to be the person answering questions.

  16. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 3:56 am #

    The problem with most “news interviews” is that the interviewer has often been too lax in allowing the interviewee to “spin” or spew lies at length unchecked.

    Personally, I think Anderson did the right thing by cutting him off and correcting him every time he was caught in a lie.

    The objective of journalism is to get at the truth and to fact check.

    Good for Anderson on calling out the BS and cutting him off when he was spewing garbage!

  17. avatar
    Lupin May 8, 2010 at 4:54 am #

    Good for Anderson Cooper.

    Perhaps you might not be in Iraq today if your media had been less supine when presented with a strong of lies.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 8:30 am #

    John: Cooper should have known better than to ask Lakin tough questions when Lakin has the Right to Remain Silent.

    Lakin has the right not to be on the Anderson Cooper 360 television show. It’s no secret what Anderson Cooper thinks of birthers. If Lakin goes on the show and can’t answer the tough questions, it’s his own fault.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 8:43 am #

    Hawaiiborn: His “lawyer” didn’t need to be the person answering questions.

    Lakin is not skilled in double talk and that was what he needed a lawyer for.

  20. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 9:13 am #

    If Lakin is interviewed further in the future, he is likely not say much beyond a few words. That is because Lakin has the Right to Remain Silent and anything he says could be used against him in his court martial. Lakin is very cautious about what he says. Lakin’s lawyer does most of the talking to make sure that Lakin is protected.

  21. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    Personally Lakin and his lawyer should really walked up and left the studio about 30 seconds to a minute into the interview when it became clear that Anderson Cooper was not going to be able to let they present his case.

    I think for furture, Lakin should be given 3 to 5 minutes of uninterrupted dialog and then the reporter can respond. Any interruption results in the immediate halting of the interview.

  22. avatar
    sarina May 8, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    Yes, of course this lawyer is lying but birthers are stubborn and stupid they believe their own lies.

    Listen birthers all you have to do is send an email to the Vital Statistic Dept. and ASK!
    I emailed them a while back asking them if a foreign child can have a COLB and this was their response:

    Vital Statistic of Records
    Office of Health Status Monitoring
    Hawaii; Dept of Health
    1250 Punchbowl St.
    Honolulu, HI 96813

    vr info@doh.hawaii.gov

    “A foreign child would have a “certification of foreign birth” not a COLB on the top of the certificate, and the place of birth would be indicated”

    Aloha,
    kd

    nice try lawyer but obviously you’re a birther!

  23. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    ….Unless of course the family lied and stated that person was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii DOH accepted the testimony as fact.

  24. avatar
    Scott Brown May 8, 2010 at 10:39 am #

    “President Obama’s birth registration was filed August 8, 1961.”

    There you go again, stating something as FACT that you cannot possibly prove as such.

    I think common sense tells us that something is amiss with his birth filing at the Hawaii DOH. Maybe it was the date, maybe it was a misspelling of a name – but there is something that Obama does not want to be made public.

    I think we can probably assume that yes, the birth registration was filed on Aug 8, 1961 – but you Dr. C do NOT have enough information at your fingertips (unless you a much closer to Obama than I realize) to make such statement as FACT.

    I didn’t watch the CNN interview – I’m not interested in Lakin or Cooper for that matter. I think it is a bunch of hoopla.

  25. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    Even though the COLBs have changed with terms Date Accepted Vs. Date Filed, we only know that Obama’s BC was filed. We don’t know if it was ever accepted. The Long-form BC would indicate if Obama’s BC was ultimately accepted.

  26. avatar
    sarina May 8, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    John:

    But the fact is that the law to register foreign children in Hawaii was passed in 1982, Obama was 21, and it was for children over 1 yr old, Obama was registered on Aug 8, he was 4 days old, so again birther you lost!

  27. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    what an idiot, hey john get a job so you can afford going to school.

  28. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    what common sense tells us is that you are a liar and your opinions are worthless.

  29. avatar
    Tomtech May 8, 2010 at 11:03 am #

    John: Would the State Registrar have been able to produce an official document stating the information was on file had the information filled not been accepted.

  30. avatar
    sarina May 8, 2010 at 11:06 am #

    Scott Brown

    Common sense?! You are talking about common sense? but birthers don’t have ANY!
    In the first place it is common sense that why Hillary, a lawyer,didn’t brought that up during the campaign.You are very naive or stupid if you think that Bush/Cheney didn’t investigated Obama. Dr. C doesn’t have enought information?! What about you birthers?
    All you have is fakes and lies!

    “It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument” William McAdoo

  31. avatar
    Scientist May 8, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    John: You do realize that even if the President were a 22 year old born in Khazakhstan of a French mother and a Chinese father, Lt Col Lakin is still required to obey the orders of his commanding officer??

    If you don’t het that, you and we should be glad that you are a civilian.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    John: we only know that Obama’s BC was filed. We don’t know if it was ever accepted.

    They only issue birth certificates for records that are accepted. So we know it was accepted. You don’t know it was accepted because you are an idiot.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Scott Brown: There you go again, stating something as FACT that you cannot possibly prove as such.

    It’s on his birth certificate, signed by the head of vital statistics of the State of Hawaii and sealed with the state seal. It is consistent with contemporary newspaper listing (the record HAD to have been filed before it could appear in the Vital Statistics list in the newspaper). So it is a FACT and I just proved it.

    Scott Brown: unless you a much closer to Obama than I realize

    Hey I get an email from the President every week (asking for money). I get one from John McCain too (same reason).

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    John: Unless of course the family lied

    If you allege fraud, prove it. And while you are at it, please prove that you are not a terrorist trying to destroy the US government by undermining faith in the President. (A birth certificate is not sufficient.)

  35. avatar
    racosta May 8, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    The “accepted vs filed” issue was extensively covered by Dr. C, it is an idiots talking point to make it a dispute. (as birthers are prone to do)
    please keep up, it will help you from appearing to be an idiot (unles that is your choice)

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    John: I think for furture [sic], Lakin should be given 3 to 5 minutes of uninterrupted dialog

    And 30 minutes for a team of legal experts to point out all the lies.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    John: Lakin has the Right to Remain Silent

    So do you.

  38. avatar
    John May 8, 2010 at 11:30 am #

    Stephen Pidgeon should get with Lakin’s attorney and turn over the Port of Entry Doc. According to Ed Hale, Hale claimed he saw the document only once before givig it over to Pidgeon. Accroding to the Port of Entry Doc, shortly after Obama’s birth Stanely Ann Dunham entered the country with a baby in tow.

  39. avatar
    BatGuano May 8, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    He tried to incriminate Lakin by asking him questions.

    all the questions:

    ” do you honestly believe president obama was not born in hawaii ?”

    ” can the col not talk for himself ?” -directed at jensen

    ” are you saying that all military born in hawaii should be suspect because that is what they provide ( a COLB ) ?” -i’m paraphrasing a bit on that one.

    basically same question is repeated.

    ” have you ever asked for any superiors birth certificate ? ”

    ” you served under gen. casey, where was he born ? ”

    ” how can you say you’re not grandstanding ? ” – paraphrasing

    ” why this issue ? ”

    ” what’s wrong with a COLB in your opinion ? “

  40. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    you mean Ed Hale, the one with the Kenya BC that he was to reveal. Are you one of Ed’s 3 fans. Did you participate in sending this scam artist the $100.00 to view that non-existant BC. Using Ed as a source is tantamount to being insane and identifies you as a rather complete idiot.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

  42. avatar
    BatGuano May 8, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    ….. to make such statement as FACT.

    scott brown is telling us how to define a fact ? oh the irony.

    are you still holding strong to your lie, scott ?

  43. avatar
    Norbrook May 8, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Exactly. For Lakin, there is no “ending this.” Even if, for some reason, Obama were to produce the documentation they “request,” it wouldn’t satisfy the birthers, or end any legal consequences to LTC Lakin.

    If they don’t get discovery (and they won’t), LTC Lakin gets court-martialed. If they do, he still gets court-martialed.

    In either case, he’s probably going to lose his rank (dismissed from service) and possibly get some jail time. So he loses either way.

  44. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    I was talking to my husband who retired from the Air Force. He was not surprised to see that most of these folks are in the Medical field. He told me that they are not officers of the line. If for example, they were in certain military situations and a Lt. Colonel doctor and a Lt. were there, the Lt. would out rank the doctor. My husband tells me that they can have a different perspective (I am phrasing this politely)of the military. Thus the doctor may not, despite his years of service, really get the importance of following your superior’s orders.

  45. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    And he kept it and said nothing. Please, as the birthers are so fond of saying “Produce the document today and this will all be over.”

  46. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    Why do you think Linda Lingle, had her appointed official go and view the original certificate while she was campaigning for John McCain? She was checking it out. You betcha!

  47. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Thank you. Thank you. All these birthers who say they respect the American military and then fail to do their homework confound me.

  48. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    What’s amazing is that the babbler liar scott brown and birther regurgitators like john seem to never learn, as their views are shown to be idiotic they continue in the same vein. john repeatedly regurgitates birther points with abandon as to facts. What is it with these people, does hating Obama cause that much lunacy?

  49. avatar
    BatGuano May 8, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    “Produce the document today and this will all be over.”

    Produce the state today and this will all be over.

  50. avatar
    misha May 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

    “Perhaps you might not be in Iraq today if your media had been less supine when presented with a strong of lies.”

    Exactly. Where were the journalists from the Vietnam era? Journalists regurgitated government press releases and called it journalism.

    Please.

  51. avatar
    misha May 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    “It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument” William McAdoo

    When you argue with a fool, make sure you are not doing the same thing. Which is why I rarely anwer them, unless is it truly egregious.

  52. avatar
    misha May 8, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    “You don’t know it was accepted because you are an idiot.”

    No, just a fool.

  53. avatar
    BatGuano May 8, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    If for example, they were in certain military situations and a Lt. Colonel doctor and a Lt. were there, the Lt. would out rank the doctor.

    medical is non-combat and as such has different rights and restrictions under the geneva convention. a medical officer can not give a combat command to anyone. it’s not a matter of out-ranking.

  54. avatar
    misha May 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    “get the importance of following your superior’s orders”

    Mary: I was a civilian volunteer with the IDF. I could not pick and choose what my CO said.

    Your CO says something, you DO it. D’ya think Orly will get an interior decorator for his suite in Kansas?

  55. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 8, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Ed Hale????????LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    I just had to get that out of myself.

    Incredible, Someone who believes in Ed Hale the renown Bigfeet Killer.

  56. avatar
    nBC May 8, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Oh boy ignorance and myth do mix so well.

  57. avatar
    GeorgetownJD May 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    Incriminate himself? John, surely you realize that Lakin’s YouTube video already did that. He’s toast already, having incriminated himself looooooooooong before that assclown Jensen was “appointed” his counsel by an organization that is using Lakin for its own purposes. Nothing admitted — or retracted — at this point will save Lakin from his fate.

  58. avatar
    GeorgetownJD May 8, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Facts is what Anderson Cooper WAS pointing out. If Jensen and Lakin want to spew their propaganda and pseudolaw uninterrupted, I’m sure William Wegener will give them that platform. He’s as rah-rah birther as they come.

  59. avatar
    GeorgetownJD May 8, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    His right to remain silent was BEFORE he made a YouTube video and talked to the likes of Pest & Efail. That right was waived weeks ago. There is nothing left to “protect.”

    Besides, the court martial will focus solely on Lakin’s missing troop movement. Lakin “spoke” by action (or, more precisely, inaction) when he failed to report at his newly-assigned post. No Fifth Amendment right protects one from incriminating conduct.

  60. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Shorter John:

    *Waaaah* The media guy was mean to us birthers and won’t let us tell our tall tales on TV unchallenged! *Waaaah* *sniff* *sob*

  61. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Again our resident liar Scott Brown emerges….And says nothing. Someone that has lied does however have an insight on lying, so in this case Scott is an expert. However as the vital statistics that Leo Donofrio received confirmed that Barack Obama Sr. and SA Dunham has a baby boy on August 4 1961. And the newspapers confirmed the birthdate. So his the evidence does shows that his birth was that date. In addition the proof (the COLB) does state that his birth was registered with the health department 4 days after the birth….Nice try Scott the liar but maybe you would have better luck with telling us what state you were born in. You know the one that issues a COLB just like Obama’s but you couldn’t get a US Passport with….

  62. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    Ed Hale? Wow…No one would believe it if he said that the sky was blue…he is a bigger liar that Scott Brown or Lucas Smith….Every time Ed Hale claimed he has some incriminating piece of evidence, what happened? Nothing. He just is a scammer and con artist. And Pidgeon? What a joke? How is is so called Chrysler case going? Did he get his QW case that would somehow require Obama to release his “Long form” BC yet? When the birthers reference known con artists and liars, you know their case is worthless….

  63. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    Rich, it must cause some serious mental issues…..Because no matter what the theory and lack of evidence, they seem to believe it…The birthers are just not rational people…

  64. avatar
    BatGuano May 8, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    ” do you honestly believe president obama was not born in hawaii ?””

    answer:

    jensen.

  65. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    Thanks for the correction.

  66. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    I think he will be lucky to stare at grey cement blocks. He is an idiot.

  67. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Neither could my husband. He highly respected some and not others. But they were his superior officers and unless they asked him to violate the code of military conduct he could not and would not question.

  68. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Good Article from CAAAFlog…

    “I find the subject of President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President to be interesting. But it’s clearly resolved by Superme Court precedent. President Obama was born in Hawaii subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (in other words, his parents didn’t have diplomatic immunity). He is, accordingly, a natural born U.S. citizen. See, e.g., United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Luria v. United States. 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913); Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

    But while I find the eligibility debate interesting, it is also profoundly irrelevant to the prosecution of LTC Lakin. LTC Lakin is guilty of missing movement and violating lawful orders regardless of whether the President is or isn’t constitutionally eligible to serve. There is no real prospect that his court-martial will result in the production of any documents or testimony concerning the irrelevant issue of President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as President. Instead, the case is likely to be a circus leading to an inevitable conviction. Attempts to press the issue on direct appeal will fail because ACCA will hold that discovery into eligibility issues isn’t relevant and CAAF will either agree or, more likely, simply deny review, thus foreclosing a cert petition on direct review. Collateral review attempts will fail under abstention (if filed before the completion of direct appeals) or because the issue was fully and fairly resolved by the military (if filed after completion of direct appeals). Some courts on collateral review may add that it agrees with the military courts’ determination that President Obama’s eligibility was irrelevant.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/05/08/the-return-of-guano-crazy/

  69. avatar
    ron May 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    AC did make one misleading comment , you do not have to be a citizen to join the U.S. military(just a legal resident with no ties to certain countries), but you do have to be a U.S. citizen to accept a commision. So I am hoping he meant to ask are all commissioned officers from Hawaii based on LTCol Lakin’s view of the COB suspect and holding their commisions illegally and can not issue any legitimate orders unless they provide the long form. Otherwise AC did an excellent job.

    This just adds to my previously posted comments that Ltcol Lakin does not have the right to vet the president or his superiors.

    As this goes on, it just shows why he can’t win. I reiterate, do we want to give every citizen the right to demand an original BC of every public offical that has a requirement that they be U.S. citizens, and the inferrance that unless the questioned individual provides proof that meets the questioning citizens individual litmus test, those in question have no authority.

    That is just rediculous. Would we really kick out every officer serving in the military born in Hawaii that can not produce a long form even though their COB’s are certified true by Hawaii, or discharge every commisioned officer in all branches of service who cannot produce a long form eventhough they have passed background checks and had their COB’s certified true by their birth states? Would we fire every police officer in every U.S. town that could not do likewise?

    This is why he won’t and can’t win.

    This would truly cause some major issues not only for the military but for every community in this country.

    I urge Lakin supporters please rethink your position.

    To the LTCol, please sir get out while you can, renounce this position and beg the miltary for mercy and go on with your life. I honestly feel you are being used and it is not right. You deserve better than this and so does your family. You do not deserve to go down as a traitor after 18 years of faithful service. Those advising you mean you no good. Please wake up.

  70. avatar
    24AheadDotCom May 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    The atty didn’t really “lie”, he simply didn’t spell out the requirements.

    As for the law being passed in 1982, it doesn’t matter: it was clearly retroactive (it was open to those born in the “territory” of HI, an entity that dissolved in 1959; it’s thus retroactive).

    Also, the only proof that the cert was filed in 1961 is… on a picture on a webpage.

    If you want to see some actual lying, here are some ways that Cooper lied and misled in the same interview:

    http://24ahead.com/n/9970

  71. avatar
    euphgeek May 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    The atty didn’t really “lie”, he simply didn’t spell out the requirements.

    Isn’t that enough for you to call someone on the other side of the argument a liar on your batshit crazy website?

  72. avatar
    ron May 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    sad note,

    I just read the LTcol’s bio and it says he is selected for “FULL BIRD” , To pin on June 2011. I really know he has lost his mind. To possibly throw away full bird Colonel over this is totalY unbelievable.

  73. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    Our old friend BZ and her idiotic fellow freepers are going crazy regarding the Lakin interview…

    Some of her humorous comments…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2509238/posts

    “We don’t get cable and nothing my husband has tried will get my computer to load what’s necessary for me to see videos. (Funny things happen when you speak out against Obama’s eligibility, ya know?) So I can’t see what happened.

    It’s probably a good thing in this case because wilfully ignorant people like Cooper really bug me.

    Was it pointed out that the HDOH has indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery?”

    3 posted on Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:06:49 AM by butterdezillion

    It’s sort of complicated because the HDOH doesn’t have to answer questions but does have to respond to requests for documents – but the summary is this:

    The Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed in 2 different ways, through official communications, that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery because

    1) the HDOH has made repeated statutory admissions that Obama’s birth certificate is amended. Any genuine long-form or COLB from the HDOH has to have note of that amendment. The Factcheck COLB doesn’t and is thus known as a forgery. And

    2) The HDOH has stated that all of Oahu’s birth certificates have always been received at the state registrar’s office and given a birth certificate number by the state registrar on the same day – the “date filed”. The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” 3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins’ but a certificate number 2 later than theirs.

    This new statement from the HDOH rules out the previous attempts to explain the discrepancy (pre-numbered BC’s at hospitals, or BC’s sitting in piles for 3 days awaiting processing). Because the number and date filed are incompatible, the Factcheck COLB is known to be a forgery.

    More (and more complete) information and documentation (including the laws and e-mails from the HDOH) can be found at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

    8 posted on Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:13:04 AM by butterdezillion

  74. avatar
    Bob Weber May 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    “Facts is what Anderson Cooper WAS pointing out.If Jensen and Lakin want to spew their propaganda and pseudolaw uninterrupted, I’m sure William Wegener will give them that platform.He’s as rah-rah birther as they come.”

    William Wegener? Google search turns up many, but none seem to be birthers or broadcasters.

  75. avatar
    Black Lion May 8, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    The attny did lie. Just like on your site you indicate the requirements regarding someone that wants to be designated a “native born Hawaiian” in regards to their Homelands program. You don’t cite the section of the DoH site that specifies that the COLB is suffcient and the only document that you will get if you request a BC. In addition I don’t think that Obama was trying to claim anything for the Homelands program. Also unless you can find a law that was in effect in 1961 that was exactly like the one in 1982, your theory lacks substance. The COLB states that the birth was registered 4 days later. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, saying that a 21 year old Obama had his birth registered in 1982 under this new law is silly. Especially since he had a US Passport in 1967 when he traveled to Indonesia, he would have had to show a BC to get one. So that kind of sinks your theory…

  76. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 8, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    What a crazy convulated website of illogic. Lingle lied! Cooper lied!, but not a reason why they would lied. Do us all favor sell your computer and close your website.

    Typical birther BS.

  77. avatar
    Texlaw May 8, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    Well, his lawyer isn’t skilled in the double talk either. He just came across as an ignorant blowhard.

  78. avatar
    24AheadDotCom May 8, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    That’s a tough question; I’m pretty sure if things were reversed I’d give the person the benefit of the doubt since most people would realize that not “anyone” can get a cert.

    Exactly what documents have to be submitted to prove that the 1982 law applies to someone? How difficult would it be for someone who isn’t really covered to fake it?

  79. avatar
    24AheadDotCom May 8, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    1. BHO could get anything he wanted from HI’s DOH, all he’d have to do is ask and they’d jump on it. I know; I’ve spoken to them and it’s not like they’re his biggest opponents or something.

    2. The “COLB” is actually just a picture of a supposed COLB. We know the picture exists; we have no verification that what’s pictured matches what’s on file. HI admits they never verified that picture against whatever they have on file.

  80. avatar
    24AheadDotCom May 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    No, both recent posts about this list how they lied and misled. I love those numbered lists!

    If you don’t think Lingle lied, then tell us at which character range in the first statement from HI’s DOH it says the name of the hospital. Tell us which character range it says he was born there (the second statement said that, but Lingle was referring to the first statement).

  81. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    24ahead your link has bad info
    It says: The qualifications for the Hawaiian Home Lands program require a certified copy of a standard birth certificate – also known as the “long-form certificate” filled out in the hospital and including details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician.
    Not True , no where on actual Hawaiia Gov real site is this found.
    if you go to the actual Hawaiian Gov site it says this about Hawaiian Home Lands:
    “Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.”

    Also states:
    “State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

    Read it yourself, here is link to Hawaii Gov.: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl/

    In the future when you supply a link at least link to one that tells the truth.

    Why do birthers link to such crappy and secondary sites, tell me that dear 24ahead, why do you link to sites that lie, a common birther tactic.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    24AheadDotCom: The atty didn’t really “lie”, he simply didn’t spell out the requirements.

    No, he lied. If he had said “some people” it would have been true, but “anybody” is false.

    24AheadDotCom: As for the law being passed in 1982, it doesn’t matter: it was clearly retroactive

    Yes, it was retroactive, but Obama’s birth was registered on August 8, 1961. The form was filled out, the document filed, and it was printed in the newspaper in 1961.

    24AheadDotCom: Also, the only proof that the cert was filed in 1961 is… on a picture on a webpage.

    No, there is also the listing of the birth in the Department of Health Vital Statistics newspaper column.

    I listened to what Cooper said, and he was correct.

  83. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    hey 24ahead, come back and explain your Hawaian Home Lands lie, or are you to scared to admit to it. How long before 24ahead admits he posted a lie on his site? The site 24ahead links to on that point is WND, the crappiest site on the internet, they love to lie. Don’t you idiots know we can easily link to the actual Hawaian Gov. site. Wow, talk about gullible, why don’t you join scott brown in your little lies, Idiot.

  84. avatar
    misha May 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    You cannot refuse an order, unless it would result in another My Lai.

    Thems the rules.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    24AheadDotCom: http://24ahead.com/n/9970

    I read your article. Total and utter bullshit.

  86. avatar
    LMK May 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    I don’t know exactly what Lakin believes or doesn’t believe. I do think that Lakin believes his puppet-masters who have told him that he will be able to subpoena records related to Obama. I think Lakin believes that he can really use Obama as his defense, and that when doing so he can get discovery.

    Lakin would never get off with the insanity plea. Legal insanity means that at the time of the crime, the defendant wasn’t able to distinguish right from wrong. Lakin’s youtube shows quite clearly that he understands that his actions are illegal and against military rules. He knows he is violating military code and is doing so willingly.

    Lakin is choosing to be a sacrificial lamb. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lakin was being paid to do this (I am not saying that he is, but wouldn’t be surprised if her were). I hope that this is worth it to Lakin, who is facing several years in prison. By the time his sentence is up, it is possible that Obama will have already finished his 2nd term as POTUS.

  87. avatar
    nemocapn May 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    The one thing I will say on the side of the birthers is that the DHHL in November 2008 had different information about birth certificates than they do today. They probably changed it once they realized that the DOH doesn’t print Certificates of Live Birth any more. I don’t recall, though, any mention of a “long form” certificate.

    I couldn’t find a page on the Wayback machine for 2008 but I did find in Google several web pages that claimed that it said this: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

    To the best of my recollection, this is what the site said in November 2008. The DHHL is responsible for verifying ethnic Hawaiian ancestry. The Certificate is more desirable for genealogical purposes, but the Certification is perfectly adequate from a legal standpoint to establish place of birth. As someone already said, Obama isn’t trying to prove he descends from Hawaiian aborigines.

  88. avatar
    richCares May 8, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    the birthers are claiming this as current and it is not, so they are lying or do not check actual sources. a wayback machine is not the Hawaian Gov. so it is poor research or flat out lies (American Thinker primary source for this one. They check didly squat)

  89. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen May 8, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Re not having to be a citizen to be in the military. True if you’re an enlisted man, but how about officers? Anderson Cooper was asking about the chain of command, those above Lakin, who would be Colonels or higher. We haven’t had a field officer not a citizen since the time of Lafayette. So, Cooper was correct.

  90. avatar
    LMK May 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    As I watched Jensen shout through the entire interview, I had this sense that Jensen has been prepped. I think that the organization “supporting” Lakin had a hard time finding a lawyer willing to take this case. Jensen is a moron who stepped up for the $. Jensen doesn’t have a clue about any of this and he has a steep learning curve. Then again, Jensen and Lakin won’t be allowed to use the birfer defense, so what is there for Jensen to catch up with?

    I found it interesting that Jensen had to have the Hawaiian statute in front of him. Other birfer lawyers have that memorized! Even Orly can rattle that off at any moment.

    Jensen is a bully. Lakin would do better to use his military lawyer and to dump Jensen. Anyone would be smart to dump Jensen.

  91. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen May 8, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    This was Anderson Cooper’s show. They knew he was going to ask LAKIN questions, and they decided to bullshit Cooper. Being a journalist, not a puppet of some political party like another net work’s asshats, Cooper wouldn’t let them get away with anything.

  92. avatar
    LMK May 8, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    AC did make one misleading comment , you do not have to be a citizen to join the U.S. military(just a legal resident with no ties to certain countries), but you do have to be a U.S. citizen to accept a commision. So I am hoping he meant to ask are all commissioned officers from Hawaii based on LTCol Lakin’s view of the COB suspect and holding their commisions illegally and can not issue any legitimate orders unless they provide the long form. Otherwise AC did an excellent job.

    I think that AC was referring to Lakin’s claim that all soldiers have to show their BCs to enter the armed services. Lakin has repeatedly claimed that soldiers have to do this because Lakin had to do that. I don’t think Lakin understands any part of military procedure.

  93. avatar
    LMK May 8, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    I think that Georgetown meant William Wagener, who is the guy who interviews Orly all of the time. His youtube channel is http://www.youtube.com/user/williamwagener.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    In an earlier version of the Hawaii Homelands web site, they asked for (but did not require) the long form, presumably because the long form contains the birth place and age of the parents, something necessary in assessing the qualifications of someone as a native Hawaiian. They previously said that if the short form were submitted, the process took longer.

  95. avatar
    ron May 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    commisioned officers do have to be U.S, citizens, as do most Police officers and State judges. So his question would apply to all officers, it could also to all enlisted as well if he is saying a COB is not really a birth certificate. I was a Marine Corps recruiter and assure you it is the opposite, that hospital form is worthless to get in military, you need a COB verified by the stae with an official seal.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    24AheadDotCom: HI admits they never verified that picture against whatever they have on file.

    It is true that they never verified the picture, but they did verify the essential information from that picture: Born Hawaii 1961.

  97. avatar
    LMK May 8, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    Is there a John echo in here??

  98. avatar
    Mary Brown May 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    That was my point, but poorly made.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    24AheadDotCom:… Lingle lied…

    A lie requires an intent to deceive. While Lingle was not 100% accurate in her account from memory, I see no intent to deceive.

    Lingle was responding to an off the wall question in a radio interview. Lakin’s attorney was presenting prepared material in which he made the following misrepresentations:

    1. Hawaiian law does not require that the birthplace on its birth certificates be accurate
    2. The newspaper birth announcements of Obama’s birth did not come from the health department
    3. “This could be over tonight” (Lakin’s own web site raises the “british father” objection that could not be resolved with a birth certificate)
    4. “Anyone” can get a Hawaiian birth certificate.

  100. avatar
    racosta May 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    the source code on the current Hawaiian Gov Home Land site shows it dated at 1999, 8 years before the American Thinker article- poor research is what birthers are famous for. I’m sure they know it but continue publishing it. UNETHICAL!

  101. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 8, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    You’re playing the game of sematics. Is it a part of the Consititution that a President birth hospital is a requirement? Lingle and her Health Director both have stated that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Which brings up another point Lingle has stated she was campaigning for McCain when the birther issue arosed. Maybe she was in on the conspiracy with McCain and the RNC?

    Typical birther logic.

    Someday birthers will face reality

  102. avatar
    nemocapn May 8, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    You’re correct that many birthers are passing along information that is no longer current. They’re simply repeating what they’ve heard before, but what’s the problem with the Wayback Machine? It’s an archive of web pages. If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Conspiracy uses it himself.

  103. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    Because all you are interested in Scott Brown, is lying. What state were you born in again? Oh that’s right…you are still unable to answer such a basic question after making up that garbage story of yours.

  104. avatar
    euphgeek May 8, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    You called the governor of Hawaii a “liar” for a simple misstatement. So you do not give people on the other side the benefit of the doubt.

    As for your other questions, why don’t you demonstrate how difficult it would be by getting your very own COLB from Hawaii saying you were born there? I’m sure you could now, since the law was passed 28 years ago, right?

  105. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    LMAO! Wow, you are about as gullible as they come, aren’t you, John?

    Hey, Ed Hale has several Bigfoot corpses to sell you too.

  106. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Poor delusional BZ. I almost feel sorry for her. She so utterly lacks logic and reading comprehension skills and so foolishly believes in the wackiest conspiracy stuff out there.

    Daily life has to be a scary thing for people like her who don’t understand the world around them.

  107. avatar
    BatGuano May 9, 2010 at 1:30 am #

    Produce the state today and this will all be over.

    sorry mary. got you confused with another ” brown ” and….. the quote was too tempting.

  108. avatar
    Bob Weber May 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    Thanks! I had tried “Wegner”, “Wagner” but not Wagener.

  109. avatar
    Epectitus May 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Dr. C also gets a shout out from CAAFlog here:

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/05/08/link-to-ltc-lakin-interview/

  110. avatar
    ron May 9, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    I agree, but that was kind of vague and before a birther pointed it out , I tried to clarify.Anyone attempting to join military must provide a BC that is verified as true, and yes if that BC is a fraud they are frauduenly enlisted. Thats why prior to graduating from Boot camp all docs are recertified and any doc not certified as true by a recognized government agency will result in an admin discharge at entry level. So all docs are double certified , Upon enlistment and while in initial training. And really triple certified due to background check done by FBI.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    We may reasonably presume that Obama provided a birth certificate (and a long form at that) when he got his first passport, and it was recently verified by the director of the Hawaii Department of Health. A “background check” was undoubtedly performed by opponents in one or more elections Obama ran in.

    This is why the Lakin objection is so misguided.

  112. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 9, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Man, did they get that lawyer from central casting? He had “the only bar I graduated from is the one on the corner of east and fourth” look down pat.

    Poor Lakin. This is going to be awful.

  113. avatar
    Dave May 10, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    Lakin already incriminated himself by making the video and having it posted on YouTube. More than likely, that’s going to be used at his court martial. And the chain of command when you’re in the military goes up and ends at the CiC. You aren’t allowed to pick and choose which orders you are going to obey. Lakin may have believed the orders were illegal because Obama isn’t the legitimate president but if military members were able to do this, we’d have disarray in the military. Military command is structured to prevent this from happening.

    Now, I could understand Lakin questioning an order if he was ordered to go in and slaughter a bunch of people he believed were innocent civilians but to refuse to deploy because he thinks it is an illegal order just isn’t going to fly.

  114. avatar
    Dave May 10, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    Jensen does know he’s lying and he knows there are enough birfoons out there that believe him. This whole thing is setup to smear the President. Another Republican ploy to remove a sitting president just like they tried to with Clinton. Problem is that Obama didn’t have the background that Clinton had – like womanizing. So, they’ve been trying to throw everything they can against the wall and make it stick. Trying to claim Obama used crack and was gay. He’s a Muslim. He wasn’t born in Hawaii. He might have been born in Hawaii but he’s got dual citizenship. It’s all a boat load of crud and the American Patriot Foundation is just out to make as much money off of it as they can from idiots that will send them their dollars.

  115. avatar
    Bob Ross May 10, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    Common sense would dictate that after you lied the first time you wouldn’t keep making up stories. Common sense would dictate when asked what state you were born to prove your story that you would actually state which state you were born in. Aparently you’re hiding something.

  116. avatar
    Bovril May 10, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Sven/John/Holy Rolly

    The “right’ to remain silent is one of those pesky Supreme Court supported, Constitutionally documented rights…..you know….like birth on the soil makes you a citizen, Full Faith and Credit…….

    Oh..and is wholly irrelvant here as this was a press interview and not a court of law.

    Do please try to stay on point

  117. avatar
    Dave May 10, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Ultimately, AC’s point was there are other military personnel from Hawaii that have shown the exact same COLB that Obama has provided and since those soldiers provided that COLB, should they be suspect that they’re not eligible to serve in the military. Of course, the blow hard Jensen kept stating that they’re not required to be NBC. Even though Jensen is correct in stating that the COLB is in fact an abstract, it is still a valid document to prove that the president was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen.

  118. avatar
    Rickey May 10, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    John says:

    Even though the COLBs have changed with terms Date Accepted Vs. Date Filed, we only know that Obama’s BC was filed. We don’t know if it was ever accepted.

    Perpetually deluded John,

    I suggest that you take another look at Obama’s COLB.

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

    It says “Date Filed by Registrar.” You got that? It was filed by the Registrar. The report of the birth is received by DOH, it is then accepted by the Registrar, who then files the birth certificate. It has to be accepted before the Registrar can file it. I would think that even a simpleton such as you would be able to comprehend that.

  119. avatar
    nbC May 10, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Even though the COLBs have changed with terms Date Accepted Vs. Date Filed, we only know that Obama’s BC was filed. We don’t know if it was ever accepted.

    Nonsense argument. Date filed is now the standard for COLB. The fact that there exists a COLB for Obama is sufficient evidence that your ‘argument’ is once again specious

  120. avatar
    nemocapn May 10, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    Yes. I want Anderson to use this method in interviewing politicians of both parties. It would promote a healthy democracy.

  121. avatar
    ron May 10, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    Thats why I can not understand why they keep asking about the long form, The certified true COB from the state would trump that document. I assure you can not use that hospital form alone to get in the military or obtain a passpost.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    The” Long Form” is a certified copy of the birth certificate, just as the COLB is. They have equal legal weight although the long form has more information on it. Hospitals create birth certificates which are filed with the State and become legal records. Hawaiian birth certificates issued before 2001 were photocopies of the registered long form, photo printed onto security paper, stamped and sealed. Hospitals will also give parents a souvenir hospital certificate (the one that might have footprints on it) that has no legal significance.

  123. avatar
    Steve May 10, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    One of the few times Lakin spoke was interesting. When Anderson Cooper asked him about whther or not he questions if soldiers born in Hawaii were really born there, Lakin replied that it was not about other soldiers, it was about the Constitution, or something to that effect.
    In his Youtube video, I believe he said something about Obama not having to show the same document soldiers are required to show when enlisting or being deployed overseas.
    Because I can assume that many Hawaiian natives who enlisted in the service used the same type of document that Obama already produced, it seems like Lakin contradicted himself. Now he’s saying that being President requires some higher level of proof.
    Sounds like he’s moving the goalposts to me.

  124. avatar
    G May 10, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Sounds like he’s moving the goalposts to me.

    Of course he is, Steve! That’s what birthers do. All there arguments are built on false premises, so all they can do is move the goalposts over and over again as each one is knocked down.

    When they run out of arguments and can’t move to goalposts any further, their next lame trick is to return to trotting out their earlier dis-proven arguments again, hoping that people have forgotten them already.

    That’s all they’ve got. That and their fear & hate to sustain themselves.

  125. avatar
    ron May 12, 2010 at 1:28 am #

    Dr. C

    I accept that the long form is a legal doc if properly certified and if we are talking about the state form created by the state from information off the form (birth record)received from the hospital. If we are talking about the original form (birth record) issued by the hospital not converted into a state document (the so called long form)then that can not be used to enlist in the miltary. As a Marine Corps Recruiter in Virginia from 1998-2000 many applicants even had a plastic card given them by hospital with their info on it. They could enter delayed entry program with it but they could not ship to boot camp without the certified state COB. Just as some applicants had mini pocket size diploma cards. Could enter delayed entry program but could not ship to boot camp without official certified diploma(official size). So once again it perplexes me why they would think that long form (which I will call the converted to state Document from Birth Record form)would trump the state certified COB since the COB is created from the long form. Thats why I assumed they are asking for the original document from the hospital (birth record) guessing they hope it is different from whatever was submitted to the state to create long form. (Hence the fraud and conspiracy claims)that would make more sense to me. So my comments were about the birth record . So I stand corrected. The long form is a legal doc if certified but the birth record is not. Please correct me if I am wrong. I definitely do not want to put out any bad info, there is enough out there already.

    Thanks for your respectful correction.

  126. avatar
    ron May 12, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    From enlistment manual record of birth is not an acceptable document to verify eligibility.

    b. Documents to verify eligibility include (return all documents to applicant after proper citizenship entries are made
    on the DD Form 1966)—
    (1) For U.S. citizens—
    (a) Birth certificate.
    (b) USCIS Form N–550/551/570 (Naturalization Certificate).
    (c) USCIS Form N–560 or N–561 (Certificate of United States Citizenship).
    (d) U.S. passport (unaltered and originally issued for 5 or more years to the applicant).
    (e) DD Form 372 (Request for Birth Verification).
    (f) DS Form 1350 (Certification of Birth).
    (g) FS Form 545 (Certification of Birth Abroad of U.S. Citizen).
    (h) FS Form 240 (Report of Birth Abroad of U.S. Citizens).
    (i) Tribal card (not expired) or letter from tribal council for American Indians born in Canada under the Jay Treaty.
    (j) Court order of final adoption for applicants enlisting based on citizenship derived from adoption.

  127. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The” Long Form” is a certified copy of the birth certificate, just as the COLB is. They have equal legal weight …

    There may be some rule of evidence that says that; but common sense says otherwise, seeing the COLB is based on the long form and not the other way around.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    yguy: There may be some rule of evidence that says that;

    There is.

  129. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: 24AheadDotCom: The atty didn’t really “lie”, he simply didn’t spell out the requirements.No, he lied. If he had said “some people” it would have been true, but “anybody” is false.

    Not all false statements are lies.

    And if they are, then Gov. Lingle was lying when she said Fukino released a statement to the effect that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital.

  130. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Tomtech: That wasn’t the only lie. Claiming Obama can “end this” by producing his “long form” birth certificate is a lie.The charges against Larkin will still be prosecuted and nothing Obama ca do will end that since the military needs to show that a service member can’t ignore orders based on an Internet rumor.

    So you think if the original documentation is subpoenaed and it shows he wasn’t born in HI, Lakin should be found guilty anyway?

    Really?

  131. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    “So you think if the original documentation is subpoenaed and it shows he wasn’t born in HI, Lakin should be found guilty anyway?”

    Yes. Just as a person can be found guilty of breaking the law for escaping jail if that person was later found innocent of the original crime, Lakin could- and should be found guilty anyway.

    Why? Not as an Obama supporter, but as one who believes in military discipline, if any officer is allowed to challenge the legitimacy of a President, this would open the door to any officers challenging not only the legitimacy of the President but of any of the chain of command.

    Seriously, if you think this through- I think going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan without a formal declaration of war is unconstitutional. But at the same time, I recognize that allowing soldiers to refuse orders based upon that claim would lead to chaos. Unless an order is clearly illegal- My Lai illegal- a solder is obligated to follow it.

    Lakin will be found guilty and should be.

    Again, assuming you agree that our actions in Afghanistan or Iraq are actually necessary to defend the citizens of the United States, then he is putting all of us at risk by his refusal to be deployed. His commander issued a lawful command, and he should be found guilty of refusing that order.

  132. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    yguy: So you think if the original documentation is subpoenaed and it shows he wasn’t born in HI, Lakin should be found guilty anyway?Really?

    I can’t speak for Tomtech, but as far as I’m concerned, yes, Lakin should still be found guilty even if it’s uncovered that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. Lakin failed to obey orders. It doesn’t matter who’s president.

    Lakin served under Bush, and I haven’t heard that he asked his superiors about whether or not he should follow Bush’s orders. The minority opinion of SCOTUS in 2000 said the winner of the election wasn’t clear. That ruling placed doubts in people’s minds that Bush was legally elected. Bush was believed by some to be a de facto president. If a soldier who voted for Gore disobeyed an order because he believed Bush wasn’t president according to the Constitution, I would’ve expected him to be found guilty, too.

  133. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    SFJeff: “So you think if the original documentation is subpoenaed and it shows he wasn’t born in HI, Lakin should be found guilty anyway?”

    Yes. Just as a person can be found guilty of breaking the law for escaping jail if that person was later found innocent of the original crime, Lakin could- and should be found guilty anyway.

    So a guy falsely convicted of a felony escapes and is apprehended, and during the trial the judge learns that someone else has made a patently credible confession to the crime the defendant was convicted of…and you appear to be saying justice demands that the trial continue regardless.

    If that’s the case, you and I have nothing more to discuss.

  134. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    nemocapn:
    I can’t speak for Tomtech, but as far as I’m concerned, yes, Lakin should still be found guilty even if it’s uncovered that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.Lakin failed to obey orders.It doesn’t matter who’s president.
    Lakin served under Bush, and I haven’t heard that he asked his superiors about whether or not he should follow Bush’s orders.The minority opinion of SCOTUS in 2000 said the winner of the election wasn’t clear. That ruling placed doubts in people’s minds that Bush was legally elected. Bush was believed by some to be a de facto president.If a soldier who voted for Gore disobeyed an order because he believed Bush wasn’t president according to the Constitution, I would’ve expected him to be found guilty, too.

    The comparison to the 2K election is absurd, because to subject a presidential election to judicial review would be such a monumental undertaking in the practical sense that constitutional considerations are almost an afterthought. Lakin is not asking for millions of ballots to be manually recounted. He’s asking to see a document that Obama could have with little more effort than it takes to get a COLB – and certainly less than it takes to quash discovery of said document.

  135. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    Justice and the law are 2 different things. In your example, we could argue about what justice demands, but the law is clear-escape is against the law, whether you are guilty or innocent of the original crime.

    Who the President is, is immaterial in Lakin’s case. His order came from a superior officer, not the President. As nemo noted, suppose some officer thought Gore really won in 2000. Would you support his right to disobey orders? Pretend you’re sworn and answer honestly.

  136. avatar
    nBC May 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    Lakin’s violation of the UCMJ by refusing a legal order and missing a troop movement is Lakin’s decision only.

    The eligibility status of the President has nothing to do with this

    Nothing at all. The trial is all about what Lakin did and did not do.

    Why is this so hard to comprehend?

  137. avatar
    nbC May 12, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    Lakin is not asking for millions of ballots to be manually recounted. He’s asking to see a document that Obama could have with little more effort than it takes to get a COLB – and certainly less than it takes to quash discovery of said document.

    Lakin has no legal rights to see whatever documents he believes the President should provide him with.
    Lakin violated the UCMJ by missing a troop movement and failure to follow legal orders.
    That’s the only issue on the table.
    Lakin’s guilt or innocence does not depend on the President’s eligibility.

  138. avatar
    Bovril May 12, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    Yguy,

    You don’t seem to grasp the salient facts.

    Lakin

    1. Deliberately and defiantly disobeyed orders of his immediate chain of command

    2. Deliberately and defiantly refused to deploy to a change of station as per direct orders of his direct chain of command

    These are the charges raised against him and at the GCM those are the only questions that will be countenanced.

    He does not and never has reported directly to the POTUS, nor has he received direct orders from the POTUS.

    As such an requests or demands by Lakin or his lawyers to sub-poena any data from Obama will be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

    He will be tried on the charges he is accused of and unless he tries for a reasons of insanity plea, will be convicted on the charges he is accused of.

    Once that happens the Birther crew will drop him in the dust and he will be a convicted man with neither rank nor career.

  139. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    “So a guy falsely convicted of a felony escapes and is apprehended, and during the trial the judge learns that someone else has made a patently credible confession to the crime the defendant was convicted of…and you appear to be saying justice demands that the trial continue regardless.”

    Are you just trying to be argumentative? I layed out my case pretty straightforward and you didn’t respond to it, but presented a new- and not relevant case.

    Lakin is not accused of forging Obama’s BC, and therefore he would not be absolved if in some alternate reality Obama’s BC were found to be forged.

    So to recap for you:
    a) if a person is being tried for a crime, and evidence is found that another person commited the crime, then the first person should be exonerated.
    b) if a military person is being tried for refusing orders, even if some other person is found to have committed a different crime, the military person is still guilty of refusing an order.

    And I don’t think you really came here for a discussion anyways did you?

  140. avatar
    SFJeff May 12, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    My apologies- I misread Yguys response.

    So to answer you: I think that the convicted felon would be eligible to have the original conviction invalidated, and a sympathetic DA might dismiss the escape charges, but I don’t think a judge would have that legal discretion.

  141. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    Scientist: Justice and the law are 2 different things.

    So are facts and allegations. What’s your point?

    In your example, we could argue about what justice demands,

    It cannot be argued intelligently that justice demands that the judge disregard the confession, except by the mentally deranged.

    As nemo noted, suppose some officer thought Gore really won in 2000.Would you support his right to disobey orders?Pretend you’re sworn and answer honestly.

    No, because again, no court is competent to judge the vote counting process in a Presidential election.

  142. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    So you think if the original documentation is subpoenaed and it shows he wasn’t born in HI, Lakin should be found guilty anyway?

    Are you saying that every order given by anyone in the military is invalid if Obama is found to be ineligible?

    So, the military, basically, has ceased to exist?

    A sergeant cannot order a private to get a hair-cut because the President is ineligible?

    Really, that’s what you believe?

    Did the President order the private to get his hair cut?

    Was Barack Obama’s signature on the bottom on Lakin’s order to deploy?

    Obama is not in Lakin’s chain of command, and even if he were, he is acting as de facto President, vested with all the powers of the office, so orders issued are valid even if he is later found to be ineligible.

    The closest analogy is if your company has held out John the Plumber as competent to contract on behalf of your company and he signs a contract with me, you are bound by that contract even if, unbeknownst to me, you fired John before he signed the contract.

  143. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    yguy: It cannot be argued intelligently that justice demands that the judge disregard the confession, except by the mentally deranged.

    The judge would definitely consider the confession in dismissing the original charge. It’s irrelevant in the escape charge. The proper action for the innocent person in jail is to petition for a new trial, not bust out of jail. This isn’t “Jail Break”, it’s real-life law.

    yguy: No, because again, no court is competent to judge the vote counting process in a Presidential election.

    You should pass the word to the Supreme Court, which stopped the 2000 count.

  144. avatar
    Don Draper May 12, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    The de facto officer doctrine does not apply when allegations of defect are alleged before the officer commences performance of his duty.

    Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
    by Supreme Court – 1995

  145. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    SFJeff:…a sympathetic DA might dismiss the escape charges

    What grounds would the DA have for continuing the prosecution if there is reasonable doubt as to the original conviction?

  146. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    Doc said “We may reasonably presume that Obama provided a birth certificate (and a long form at that) when he got his first passport, and it was recently verified by the director of the Hawaii Department of Health. A “background check” was undoubtedly performed by opponents in one or more elections Obama ran in.”

    And you have the audacity to make fun of the birthers for speculating?

    What passport would that be, Doc? Indonesian, British, Kenyan, U.S.? Show me!

    Either demonstrate that a background check was performed, or admit that it wasn’t. If it was performed, produce the results. Many catastrophic events have taken place because somebody believed “the other guy” had already checked it. Do you even have one person who said they performed a background check on Obama? Just one person?

  147. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    nbCLakin has no legal rights to see whatever documents he believes the President should provide him with.

    Maybe not, but he has the right and responsibility to disobey orders he has reasonable cause to believe are illegal.

    Bovril: He does not and never has reported directly to the POTUS, nor has he received direct orders from the POTUS.

    That is of no moment. If the ultimate source of the order he received is the CiC, the legal authority of the order he received from his immediate superior depends on that of the original order.

  148. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    yguy: What grounds would the DA have for continuing the prosecution if there is reasonable doubt as to the original conviction?

    Let’s say a cop arrests me on suspicion of drug possession. In the course of the arrest, I punch him in the face. It later turns out that I didn’t have drugs. Do you think the cops would let me go on resisting arrest and assaulting an officer?

    Disclaimer: This is a thought experiment only. Do not attempt this.

  149. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    yguy: Maybe not, but he has the right and responsibility to disobey orders he has reasonable cause to believe are illegal

    “Kill that unarmed civilian” is an illegal order. “Report for duty” is a legal order. Lakin disobeyed a legal order.

    End of story.

  150. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Scientist: It’s irrelevant in the escape charge.

    I don’t know whether you can cite anything that supports this, but if that’s what the law says, it’s clearly unjust.

    The proper action for the innocent person in jail is to petition for a new trial,

    Actually, if he’s innocent, and has pursued every legal avenue, escape – if it can be done without injury to anyone else – is perfectly proper, since it is the state which has acted improperly. Nothing could be more elementary.

    You should pass the word to the Supreme Court, which stopped the 2000 count.

    More accurately, it stopped the FLA judiciary from exercising authority it didn’t have under the Constitution.

  151. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Which is irrelevant. All of the birthers, who once again are unfamilar with how the law really works, live in a fantasy land where the law works how they want it to. In the military things are different. As Bovril stated, Larkin is charged with the following….

    1. Deliberately and defiantly disobeyed orders of his immediate chain of command

    2. Deliberately and defiantly refused to deploy to a change of station as per direct orders of his direct chain of command

    Either one is punishable by time in Leavenworth. Where Larkin is in the most trouble is disobeying the order of his direct commander. No amount of let me see Obama’s BC records will help him with that one.

    In the birther fantasy land, because the President is the CiC, all orders eventually come from him. However in the real world that is not so. The Army makes deployment decisions every day and relies on the chain of command. There has not been one military legal expert, even on FOX, that has been able to say that Larkin has a chance. The Army is going to make an example out of him and rightfully so. Larkin is a seditious dupe and will be hopefully sent to do some hard time in Leavenworth….

  152. avatar
    nbc May 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Maybe not, but he has the right and responsibility to disobey orders he has reasonable cause to believe are illegal.

    At his own risk, the precedent cases are clear that an order which appears to be a legal one, may be ignored at one’s own risk.

    Since Lakin was informed that the direct orders were legal, and since US v Newt shows how one cannot raise the constitutionality question anyway, that refusing to follow orders which appear by any standard to be legal, is done so at one’s own risk.

    How familiar are you with US v Newt?

  153. avatar
    nbc May 12, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    US v New…

  154. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 12, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Yguy,

    Hobbes would agree with you about what is ethical and just for the innocently accused (unless you tried to kill the king), but the law is a different matter – this is why both judges and prosecutors should have (and exercise) discretion.

  155. avatar
    nbc May 12, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Seems to me that you have not really read the ruling. The challenge to the validity of the Court was raised in a rehearing.

    Seems you are mixing up your cases

  156. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    WTF, what you fail to realize is that no one has to demonstrate anything to you or me. That is not in the Constitution. It amazes me how all of a sudden everyone wants the proof that supports the proof. Legally there comes a point that you have to accept what has been presented. Just like you had to accept that George Bush was born in CT. No proof was ever provided and none was asked for.

    Then you say the following humorous statement…”What passport would that be, Doc? Indonesian, British, Kenyan, U.S.? Show me!”

    Interesting. No proof that the President was ever in Great Britian as a child, he had a passport before he ever went to Indonesia, and wasn’t in Kenya until he was over 21. So common sense and logic would dictate that there would be only on passport, and American one because he was born in the US, the country he spend most of his life in with the exception of 4 years when he was living in Indonesia.

    But even of a US passport was produced, your next statement would be how do we know that the information used to get the passport was not forged. The questioning will never stop nor will the goalposts stop moving.

    The COLB is exactly like any other on issued after 2007 from HI, with the correct seals and signatures, the birthers claim that it could have been forged.

    Dr. Fukino and Gov Lingle state Obama was born in HI, they are lying or the information they are using to make that statement was forged.

    The newspapers have a notice of the birth from the HI DoH, then the papers were either forged or the information from the DoH was forged.

    In other words nothing will ever be enough. And if all documentation was presented to your satisfaction then you would pull the De Vattel nonsense out to try and disqualify him. And if the SCOTUS ruled for Obama, you would claim that the Justices were bribed/threatened to rule that way. So he can never win. Let’s be honest. No birther, if Obama cured cancer and eliminated the deficit would ever vote for him. So why should he even care about a crackpot 1% of Americans that hate him. He is doing the right thing. Worrying more about the country than a bunch of hateful people…

  157. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Greg:
    Are you saying that every order given by anyone in the military is invalid if Obama is found to be ineligible?

    No, just orders which have Obama as their ultimate source.

    So, the military, basically, has ceased to exist?

    No, it would just be operating under illegitimate authority.

    Obama is not in Lakin’s chain of command, and even if he were, he is acting as de facto President, vested with all the powers of the office, so orders issued are valid even if he is later found to be ineligible.
    The closest analogy is if your company has held out John the Plumber as competent to contract on behalf of your company and he signs a contract with me, you are bound by that contract even if, unbeknownst to me, you fired John before he signed the contract.

    I think that would depend on whether John was aware that he’d been fired, but I don’t see how the analogy helps anyway.

    You’re arguing essentially that Lakin has an obligation, presumably to the American people, to obey the order to deploy; but the ultimate expression of the will of the people is the Constitution, which says legal orders can only come from a natural born citizen, about which there is reasonable doubt in the case of Obama.

    So he didn’t hire John the Plumber, and his obligation is certainly not to follow John’s orders.

  158. avatar
    Black Lion May 12, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    yguy says “No, just orders which have Obama as their ultimate source.”

    And how can you determine that? The problem if you want to make the assumption that Obama being illegitmate is that any order given by any commander can be questioned. You can’t pick and choose which ones are legit and which ones are not….

    That is why Lakin has no shot in getting acquitted. The military is based on following orders. You question orders at your own risk. Lakin took the risk and will probably pay for it. You are obligated to follow orders in the military. If you are ordered to deploy, you go. You have a duty to your unit and your fellow soilders. Lakin’s seditious act not only was a slap in the face to his unit and fellow soilders, but this country.

    Lakin will realize that questioning the CiC’s legitimacy did not work for New. The UCMJ is very explicit when it comes to following orders. He choose not to so he will have to pay….

  159. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Scientist:
    Let’s say a cop arrests me on suspicion of drug possession.In the course of the arrest, I punch him in the face.It later turns out that I didn’t have drugs.Do you think the cops would let me go on resisting arrest and assaulting an officer?

    No, because you haven’t exhausted all legal remedies, and because assault is not escape.

  160. avatar
    Bob Ross May 12, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    Background checks are performed on all those seeking security clearances.

  161. avatar
    nbc May 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    Huh?
    Please say that again but now as an argument. It just does not make sense.
    This question is quite relevant. Exhausting legal remedies does not provide one with a right to use illegal ones.

  162. avatar
    Bovril May 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    So wrong….

    His orders came from his immediate line superiors in the chain of command…..that’s it, end of story. Your thesis would be that ALL orders of all types at all times descend from the civilian in charge of the military….which incidentally is the Sec Def…..

    You plainly have not an iota of understanding on the military

  163. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    nbc: … US v Newt shows how one cannot raise the constitutionality question anyway …

    […]

    How familiar are you with US v Newt?

    Not at all, but I’ll wager it shows “one cannot raise the constitutionality question” about as well as Wickard v Filburn shows someone not engaging in commerce can be prosecuted under the commerce clause. πŸ™‚

  164. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    Black Lion: yguy says “No, just orders which have Obama as their ultimate source.”And how can you determine that?

    It may not be possible in call cases, but clearly it’s possible in some. For instance, no one being deployed to Iraq in March of 03 was ignorant of where the order was coming from.

  165. avatar
    Bovril May 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Yguy,

    Since you won’t accept the simple fact and it is a fact, of the irrelevance of your personal view on orders and chain of command I suggest the folowing.

    Go to http://www.cafflog.com which is the blog site of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    (The CAAF is where Lakin will eventually lodge his appeal and be confirmed as still convicted when he is convicted)

    There are already a number of posts from actual serving military officers and lawyers who have already, as we have, dismissed this fantasy as without any standing or basis in law.

    Feel free to argue with them, I dare you.

    p.s. The opinions of actual officers and lawyers are running 100% that Lakin is going tio be convicted and that search for some outative BC will be denied.

    p.p.s. There is also a strong thread of opinion that any such request will be dismissed with the threat of sanctions if it is repeatedly raised.

  166. avatar
    Bovril May 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    Oops….

    http://www.caaflog.com/

  167. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    yguy- You are entitled to your opinion on what the law should be, but when it comes to what the law IS, you have to accept the opinions of those more knowledgable than you (which is, frankly, just about everyone here). You are entitled to lobby your congressional reps to change the UCMJ to allow soldiers to disobey orders if they don’t like the President. But until then, you really are simply wrong in your statements regarding current law.

    If you go to the doctor and he tells you you have cancer, it doesn’t do much good to argue that you shouldn’t have cancer or that it’s unfair. Sometimes, you just have to accept reality, whether you like it or not.

  168. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    Exhausting legal remedies does not provide one with a right to use illegal ones.

    What you’re missing is that the law is only respectable insofar as it is just, either in form or application.

  169. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    I think that would depend on whether John was aware that he’d been fired

    No, it all depends on whether I know that John has been fired. Only if you have successfully stripped John of the trappings of office can contracts signed by him be disclaimed by you.

    It’s the doctrine of apparent authority, which is the corporations equivalent of de facto officer doctrine.

    Until Obama is found illegitimate and stripped of office, all his orders are in the same category as those signed by John the plumber before the world finds out he’s been fired – valid and enforceable.

  170. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    For instance, no one being deployed to Iraq in March of 03 was ignorant of where the order was coming from.

    Their commanding officer. Perhaps the top general had a case that he shouldn’t have been required to follow the order to turn around and order deployment, since, in his case, the President would have been the first officer in his command who could order a general court martial, but those below that top officer cannot challenge the validity of the office of the President.

    The President is not the first officer who can order a general court martial against Lakin, therefore he is not in Lakin’s chain of command. The order to deploy did not originate with him. Obama was not the ultimate source of his orders.

    That’s how military justice works. (Approximately, since IINA military L.)

    Bovril points you to the wonderful resource, CAAFLOG.com, which explains a little better how military justice works. It appears that the reasoned opinion over there is that Lakin has a snowball’s chance in Heck of winning his suit, since Obama’s eligibility is not relevant.

  171. avatar
    WTF? May 12, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    yguy,

    Greg is absolutely correct on this. Once a principle endorses an agent to a third party, it becomes the duty of the principle to notify the third party that the authority of that agent has been terminated.

    What that has to do with Lakin, I don’t know. πŸ™‚

  172. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    Greg:
    Their commanding officer.

    He didn’t know the order to deploy came from the CiC?

    The President is not the first officer who can order a general court martial against Lakin, therefore he is not in Lakin’s chain of command.

    How exactly does the conclusion follow from the premise?

    The order to deploy did not originate with him. Obama was not the ultimate source of his orders.

    What is your basis for this assertion?

    That’s how military justice works.

    That’s not what I’m asking about right now. I’m asking how you justify the claim that Obama isn’t in Lakin’s chain of command.

  173. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm #

    Scientist: you really are simply wrong in your statements regarding current law.

    Pray be specific.

  174. avatar
    Scientist May 12, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    yguy: Pray be specific.

    You are simply wrong that soldiers can disobey legal orders. You might want it to be otherwise, but it isn’t.

    But if you don’t believe me, do the following experiment:

    1. Join the Army.
    2. Disobey an order.

    Maybe you can get to be Lakin’s cellmate in the brig.

  175. avatar
    yguy May 12, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Scientist:
    You are simply wrong that soldiers can disobey legal orders.

    More accurately, you are simply wrong that I ever made such a claim.

    Now would you care to find fault with something I actually said?

  176. avatar
    ron May 12, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    you are correct please note my post above from militaery processing manual

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    yguy: Not all false statements are lies.

    I agree with that 100%, and you will rarely see me personally claim that someone is lying. However, in the case of Attorney Jensen on CNN, he was an attorney, he chose what he was going to talk about, he claimed to have the statute IN HIS HAND and I just don’t see any reasonable excuse for a mistake.

    There’s no reason to think Lingle was prepared for the question, or that she had a copy of Doctor Fukino’s statement in her hand. It was a year ago. It is easy go think that she simply made a mistake. There was no reason for her to lie.

  178. avatar
    Greg May 12, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Obama is like the endorsed agent. He is de facto president and his actions are legal and proper until he is properly removed from office. The de facto officer doctrine is older, has more theoretical support and makes more prudential sense, than the doctrine of apparent authority.

    Lakin’s behavior is exhibit 1 for why this doctrine is appropriate.

    We have a war that was validly entered into by Bush (presumably) and, because Lakin doubts Obama’s eligibility, suddenly the war is unprosecutable?

    Yeah, doesn’t work like that!

  179. avatar
    ron May 12, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Also please note in below submittal (military acceptable documents to prove eligibility) that a U.S. passport is also a valid document to prove citizenship and eligibility to join the military.) so technically one could argue that a COB is not even necessary as far as the Military is concerned to prove citizenship if you have shown a valid passport that is “unaltered and originally issued for 5 or more years to the applicant”. I wonder if the LTCol or his lawyer were aware of that.

  180. avatar
    nemocapn May 12, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    yguy: The comparison to the 2K election is absurd, because to subject a presidential election to judicial review would be such a monumental undertaking in the practical sense that constitutional considerations are almost an afterthought.

    Ah, but Bush v. Gore WAS subjecting a presidential election to judicial review when it shouldn’t have been. Trying Obama’s eligibility for the presidency in a court of military justice would be, too. Article I, Section 3 provides for the removal of a president by the legislative branch, not the judiciary, and most certainly not by the military.

    Regarding Bush v. Gore, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states that the state legislature decides how electors are chosen. It’s up to the legislature to decide a disputed election unless the Constitution of that state provides otherwise. The Florida Constitution supposedly does provide for judicial review on such matters, so SCOTUS should’ve let the ruling of Florida’s Supreme Court stand. SCOTUS should never have intervened in the election. I say this as someone who didn’t vote for Bush or Gore. If SCOTUS had ruled that Gore would be president, I would’ve opposed that, too. The dissenting SCOTUS justices said the winner of the election was unclear. For those who agreed with the dissenting justices, Bush was a de facto president until 2004.

    I don’t understand why you think that subjecting Obama’s presidential election to judicial review in a court martial isn’t a monumental undertaking, too.

  181. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    nemo: I think if you read between the lines of the birthers, they don’t believe in democracy. Our friend WTF? said “Elections don’t matter!”, “Elections are just popularity contests.” They read the Constitution and all they see are 3 words. The paragraphs about how a President is ELECTED, they ignore. Oh, elections are OK when the “right” guy wins, but otherwise, they’re just an inconvenience. So, a President where there is the slightest question about NBC status (however bogus) is a scandal. A President where there are real, serious questions about whether he actually won-no big deal.

    I think they would really prefer a system like Iran’s where a Guardian Council of mullahs picks a limited slate of candidates and the people get to choose one from the list. The only change they would make is that the Guardian Council would be fundamentalist preachers, rather than mullahs.

  182. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    I’m asking how you justify the claim that Obama isn’t in Lakin’s chain of command.

    Let me quote from real military lawyers. This is the JAG’s response to Lakin’s complaint:

    “Your complaint is deficient and will not proceedu under Article 138 and its implementing provisions in chapter 20 of AR 27-10, Military Justice, 16 November 2005. Article 138 permits Soldiers to complain of alleged wrongs committed by a commanding officer. However, as explained below, General Casey is neither your commanding officer nor did he commit any wrongs against you. Additionally, neither General Casey nor any other Department of Defense official is in a position to provide any redress for your complaint.

    Army Regulation 27-10, paragraphs 20-4b and 20-4e define the terms ‘commanding officer’ and ‘wrong,’ respectively. A ‘commanding officer’ is ‘[a]n officer in the complainant’s chain of command, up to and including the first officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the complainant, authorized to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15, UCMJ) on the complainant.’ General Casey does not meet the definition of ‘commanding officer’ because he is not a member of your chain of command and he does not have the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment on you.”

    That’s why I conditioned my response on the fact that I was not a military lawyer. Obama may be in the chain of command, but Lakin cannot bring an article 138 complaint against him because Obama is not Lakin’s commanding officer.

    Lakin is in the same situation as Michael New. Michael New argued that he was simply not following unlawful orders. The court reminded him that if the order looks, on its face, like a legal order, then he is required to follow it. If you have to go to court to determine if it is legal, in other words, follow the order or get court-martialed!

  183. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 8:14 am #

    Greg-I have a general question regarding court martials. As I understand it, their jurisdiction is limited to members of the military. Do they actually have subpoena power over civilians? How would they enforce that?

    Of course, this isn’t an issue in the Lakin case, since Obama’s birth records are completely irrelevant to his offense, but what would happen in a case where a civilian had evidence that pertained to a court martial and didn’t want to testify?

  184. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    Again, IANA (military) L, and a search of google suggests that I am truly out of my element trying to talk about military subpoenas. It appears that military investigators only have subpoena power after a referral but that after that, they have the same power as in a civil court. (Rules for Court Martial 703(e)(2))

    The problem for Lakin is that his defense counsel will have to ask “trial counsel” for the subpoenas. “Trial Counsel” in military parlance appears to mean the prosecution. CAAFlog explains the problem:

    Once his case has been referred to a GCM, LTC Lakin’s counsel will likely ask the trial counsel to issue subpoenas for the production of documents from non-parties, such as the state of Hawaii, and will probably seek a subpoena to compel the testimony of President Obama. The trial counsel will refuse. The defense will then litigate the issue before the military judge. The military judge will (correctly) rule that none of the requested documents or witnesses is relevant to the issue of whether any orders issued to LTC Lakin were lawful. The military judge will, therefore, deny the defense discovery motion. The defense will probably challenge that ruling via petitions for extraordinary relief, which will be denied. The case will then go to trial. But if LTC Lakin wants to challenge the discovery rulings on appeal–and presumably his decision to miss movement and disobey orders is a vehicle to obtain that discovery, so he’ll want to appeal the ruling–he’ll have to be sentenced to either a dismissal or a year or more of confinement. Will we see the spectacle of the defense requesting a dismissal in order to appeal the discovery rulings?

    The prosecution won’t agree to issue subpoenas because the President’s eligibility isn’t relevant to the case.

  185. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I agree with that 100%, and you will rarely see me personally claim that someone is lying. However, in the case of Attorney Jensen on CNN, he was an attorney, he chose what he was going to talk about, he claimed to have the statute IN HIS HAND and I just don’t see any reasonable excuse for a mistake.There’s no reason to think Lingle was prepared for the question, or that she had a copy of Doctor Fukino’s statement in her hand. It was a year ago. It is easy go think that she simply made a mistake. There was no reason for her to lie.

    Lingle was not under hostile interrogation.

    Jensen clearly was. Had Cooper been interested in the truth, he would have asked for clarification of Jensen’s point. Things being what they were, Jensen had to fight through a barrage of irrelevancies to get anywhere close to presenting the basics of his case.

  186. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    nemocapn:
    Ah, but Bush v. Gore WAS subjecting a presidential election to judicial review when it shouldn’t have been.Trying Obama’s eligibility for the presidency in a court of military justice would be, too.Article I, Section 3 provides for the removal of a president by the legislative branch, not the judiciary, and most certainly not by the military.

    The impeachment process presumes the President was legally inaugurated to begin with.

    Regarding Bush v. Gore,Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states that the state legislature decides how electors are chosen. It’s up to the legislature to decide a disputed election unless the Constitution of that state provides otherwise.

    Actually, the very clause you cite makes it impossible for any state to provide otherwise – which is exactly why SCOTUS was correct in thwarting the attempt by the FLA judiciary to subvert that clause.

    The Florida Constitution supposedly does provide for judicial review on such matters,

    That is of no moment, because A2S1C2 provides for federal judicial review.

    I don’t understand why you think that subjecting Obama’s presidential election to judicial review in a court martial isn’t a monumental undertaking, too.

    If you can’t see a difference between recounting millions of ballots under court supervision and issuing a subpoena for documents that would take a judge maybe a half hour to look over, I don’t know what else to tell you.

  187. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Greg: We have a war that was validly entered into by Bush (presumably) and, because Lakin doubts Obama’s eligibility, suddenly the war is unprosecutable?

    No, Obama’s lack of eligibility would mean *he* lacks authorization to prosecute the war.

  188. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    yguy: The impeachment process presumes the President was legally inaugurated to begin with.

    Really? Where does it say that?

    And President Obama was legally inaugurated. Congress and the whole Supreme court and 2 million people were there. Are you saying that if someone found him having sex with an intern or committing some other grave crime, he can’t be impeached? Wow, if I were him I would be having a grand time.

  189. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 11:07 am #

    yguy: No, Obama’s lack of eligibility would mean *he* lacks authorization to prosecute the war.

    Does Obama have the authority to pay Lakin’s salary? Unless Lakin turned down his pay starting on Jan 20,2009, he is a hypocrite.

    And why the *he*? Are you saying Obama is a she?

  190. avatar
    WTF? May 13, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Greg said; “The President is not the first officer who can order a general court martial against Lakin, therefore he is not in Lakin’s chain of command.”

    Later Greg said; “Obama may be in the chain of command, but Lakin cannot bring an article 138 complaint against him because Obama is not Lakin’s commanding officer.”

    Just to clarify the issue, the Commander-in-Chief is at the top of every member of the U.S. Military’s chain of command.

    Greg said; “Lakin cannot bring an article 138 complaint against him because Obama is not Lakin’s commanding officer.”

    That is correct.

    Greg said; “Lakin is in the same situation as Michael New.”

    The decision against New had nothing to do with law, and everything to do with conformity. In essence, the ruling was ‘The lawfulness of an order is of no consequence, as long as the overwhelming majority is willing to blindly follow it’. We all know that to be a load of crap.

    Every Member of the U.S. Armed Forces has a duty to disobey an unlawful order. While they do so at their own peril, it is still nonetheless their duty. With that duty to disobey an unlawful order comes a collateral duty to interpret the law. After all, one cannot impose a duty to disobey an unlawful order without also imposing a duty to interpret the law. Can they? If anyone thinks a Member of the Armed Forces is not qualified to interpret the Constitution, and the laws and treaties created in the pursuance thereof, let them be the first to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that would relieve the member of their obligation to interpret the law. What? No takers? Funny how so many want to have their cake and eat it too.

    While most of those who interpret the law (judges) have the luxury of immunity from prosecution (should the get it wrong), the Members of our Armed Forces, out of battlefield necessity, are granted no such immunity.

    While Lt. Col. Lakin has no immunity if he misinterprets the law, he is still obligated to disobey an unlawful order.

    What law is Lakin interpreting? Answer: The U.S. Constitution. And according to the SCOTUS holding in Marbury, that law reigns Supreme over any Act of Congress.

    Right or wrong, Lt. Col. Lakin recognized his obligation at his own peril. That’s not an easy thing to do.

    It’s easy for those who have never donned the uniform to make fun of him. Most of those who do, do so in the name of no-holds-barred partisan politics. They never have, nor do they ever intend to, stand in his shoes. They make fun of him, as is there protected right, but I wonder how many of them would do so at their own peril. Alas, there is no consequence for the anonymous blogger.

    I have no problem with those who disagree with Lt. Col. Lakin. I welcome their opinion with regard to the law. [Aggravating insult deleted, Doc.]

  191. avatar
    WTF? May 13, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    BTW: My disgust was not directed a Greg. I don’t recall Greg ever personally attacking Lt. Col. Lakin.

  192. avatar
    Don Draper May 13, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Trial counsel could subpoena Form SS-5, Social Security Application for Barack Obama from SSA for self-identification as to U.S. Citizen or Legal Alien.

    Trial counsel could subpoena I-94, USCIS, Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN), DoS, IRS, FBI and USCIS (DHS).

    etc …

  193. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    Trial counsel could subpoena any of those things, if they, in fact, existed, Don.

    None, however, are relevant to the case since Obama’s eligibility is not relevant to the case.

  194. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 11:27 am #

    No, Obama’s lack of eligibility would mean *he* lacks authorization to prosecute the war.

    And in practice, what does that mean? That anyone currently in the military can refuse to serve overseas until they, themselves, are satisfied that Obama is eligible?

    In a little under a month, yguy, Lakin will be “arraigned,” and his court martial will begin in earnest. Every military lawyer I’ve seen predicts that Obama’s eligibility will not be a factor in the case. Why do you think that is?

  195. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Actually, the very clause you cite makes it impossible for any state to provide otherwise – which is exactly why SCOTUS was correct in thwarting the attempt by the FLA judiciary to subvert that clause.

    Only 3 justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) agreed there was an article II issue.

  196. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Scientist:
    Really?Where does it say that?

    Seems pretty self-evident to me that they never counted on the American people being fool enough to elect someone who failed to meet the minimal and explicit constitutional requirements.

    And President Obama was legally inaugurated.Congress and the whole Supreme court and 2 million people were there.

    Did any of them see his original birth certificate?

  197. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Scientist:
    Does Obama have the authority to pay Lakin’s salary?

    If he’s ineligible, he has no authority whatsoever.

    Unless Lakin turned down his pay starting on Jan 20,2009, he is a hypocrite.

    That’s his lookout.

  198. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    If he’s ineligible, he has no authority whatsoever.

    Apparent authority.

    Do you imagine that if Obama is found to be ineligible that every military and government employee will have to return their paychecks back to Jan 20, 2009?

    This is why the de facto officer doctrine exists.

    Google is your friend, google “de facto officer doctrine.”

    Or, let the military lawyers at CAAFlog explain it to you:

    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, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1124, 30 L.Ed. 178 (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.”

  199. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    Of course, until then, Obama is presumed to have all the authority. Especially since it is not even Obama who is responsible for paying Lakin.

    US v New has shown how this is a dead end. But it does show that Lakin himself is a bit inconsistent in his refusals.

  200. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    Did any of them see his original birth certificate?

    Totally irrelevant.

  201. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    Greg:
    And in practice, what does that mean?

    If the American people are content to leave in office a President who is ineligible, they have thrown away the Constitution.

    That anyone currently in the military can refuse to serve overseas until they, themselves, are satisfied that Obama is eligible?

    They must be guided by conscience.

    In a little under a month, yguy, Lakin will be “arraigned,” and his court martial will begin in earnest. Every military lawyer I’ve seen predicts that Obama’s eligibility will not be a factor in the case. Why do you think that is?

    Because respect for the Constitution among jurists has been increasingly subverted by reliance on case law, and because nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being exposed as ineligible.

  202. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    At least we know when the begining of the end for the seditious LtC. Lakin will begin….

    “A preliminary hearing is scheduled for June 11 in the court martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Birther Army doctor who refused to obey orders, the group representing him announced today.

    Charges were brought against Lakin April 22, and a commanding officer appointed of what is known as an Article 32 pre-trial investigation, which has similarities to a grand jury investigation in a civilian case.

    The Article 32 hearing will be on the morning of June 11 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where Lakin is based, the American Patriot Foundation said in a press release.

    According to the Navy JAG website, an Article 32 hearing typically involves an airing of evidence and examination and cross-examination of witnesses:

    An investigative hearing is scheduled as soon as reasonably possible after the investigating officer’s appointment. The hearing is normally attended by the investigating officer, the accused and the defense counsel. The commander will ordinarily detail counsel to represent the United States, and in some cases a court reporter and an interpreter. Ordinarily, this investigative hearing is open to the public and the media.
    The investigating officer will, generally, review all non-testimonial evidence and then proceed to examination of witnesses. Except for a limited set of rules on privileges, interrogation, and the rape-shield rule, the military rules of evidence (which are similar to the federal rules of evidence) do not apply at this investigative hearing. This does not mean, however, that the investigating officer ignores evidentiary issues. The investigating officer will comment on all evidentiary issues that are critical to a case’s disposition. All testimony is taken under oath or affirmation, except that an accused may make an unsworn statement.

    A report on the hearing is prepared and sent to a commander who then decides on disposition of the case.”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/court_martial_of_birther_army_doc_marches_on.php

  203. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    No, Obama’s lack of eligibility would mean *he* lacks authorization to prosecute the war.

    But it would not mean that the military lacks authorization to do so. You do understand that Obama’s eligibility has no impact on Lakin or the prosecution of the war?

    You do understand that Lakin has no defense? The eligibility of the President has no relevance to the chain of command pursuing an action.

  204. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Greg: Why do you think that is?

    Because they are familiar with case law, de-facto officer doctrine and US v New. Just a ‘guess’…
    The outcome is predictable.

  205. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    yguy: Scientist:
    Does Obama have the authority to pay Lakin’s salary?
    If he’s ineligible, he has no authority whatsoever.

    Then, I would like all birthers to live their values:

    No Social Security
    No Medicare
    No military or civil service pay
    No pay from government contracts

    Oh, and by the way, the Border Patrol has to stop patrolling the border now.

  206. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Greg:
    Apparent authority.

    In WW2, a Nazi wearing a US Army Captain’s uniform and speaking perfect “American” would have “apparent authority” too.

    Do you imagine that if Obama is found to be ineligible that every military and government employee will have to return their paychecks back to Jan 20, 2009?

    I don’t see why. That money is appropriated by Congress, not the CiC.

  207. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Yguy says…

    “Because respect for the Constitution among jurists has been increasingly subverted by reliance on case law, and because nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being exposed as ineligible.”

    That statement shows you are not knowledgable about the law. Which is always the problem with the entire birther argument. Even when every legal expert and scholar tells you that Lakin has no chance with the Obama is ineligible defence, you make a silly statement that somehow people fear that Obama will be exposed as being ineligible. What a crock. No one is remotely afraid of that because a majority of Americans know that he is eligible. After 2 years of ridiculous theories and innuendo, not one piece of admissible evidence has ever been presented that has contradicted the facts that Obama was born in HI, thus eligible to be President. Those are the facts, and in the real world, the law relies on factual evidence. Not imaginary evidence and wild and improbable scenarios.

    Jurists rely on case law because that is how the law works. The Constitution is a fine document but is not perfect. Which is why it has been amended 27 times. And which is why the judical branch is tasked with interpretation of the document. You may not like it but the law is implicit in this case. Lakin is done and Obama is still the eligible and rightful President of the US until at least January 20, 2013.

  208. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    In WW2, a Nazi wearing a US Army Captain’s uniform and speaking perfect “American” would have “apparent authority” too.

    That’s just a silly argument.

    But you do understand the ‘de facto officer’ doctrine and the ‘disobey orders at your own risk’?
    Has it occurred to you to discuss these issues and show that you at least have read about them?

  209. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    If the American people are content to leave in office a President who is ineligible, they have thrown away the Constitution.

    On the other hand, if ‘american’ people want to have a duly elected President removed through non-constitutional approaches, they have thrown away the constitution

    Because respect for the Constitution among jurists has been increasingly subverted by reliance on case law, and because nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being exposed as ineligible.

    Imagine that… reliance on case law and precedent.
    Do you have any idea how silly your claims have become?
    All because you refuse to accept Obama as our President

  210. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    nbC:
    But it would not mean that the military lacks authorization to do so.

    It would mean it lacks authority to do so under direction from Obama.

    You do understand that Obama’s eligibility has no impact on Lakin or the prosecution of the war?

    Lakin did not swear an oath to aid the prosecution of any particular military action.

  211. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    In WW2, a Nazi wearing a US Army Captain’s uniform and speaking perfect “American” would have “apparent authority” too.

    Godwin’s law.

    Go on Google and find me a single example of a soldier refusing to follow orders until he was convinced that his Captain was not a Nazi.

    Here’s what one court said about the issue:

    The first duty of a soldier is obedience, and without this there can be neither discipline nor efficiency in an army. If every subordinate officer and soldier were at liberty to question the legality of the orders of the commander, and obey them or not as they may consider them valid or invalid, the camp would be turned into a debating school, where the precious moment for action would be wasted in wordy conflicts between the advocates of conflicting opinions.

    McCall v. McDowell, 1 Abb. 212 (Cir. Ct. D. California 1867)

    More recently, the military court reaffirmed this and said:

    An individual soldier is not free to ignore the lawful orders or duties assigned by his immediate superiors.

    For there would be an end of all discipline if the seamen and marines on board a ship of war [or soldiers deployed in the field], on a distant service, were permitted to act upon their own opinion of their rights [or their opinion of the Presidents and United Nations intent], and to throw off the authority of the commander whenever they supposed it to be unlawfully exercised.

    Where the order is apparently regular and lawful on its face, he is not to go behind it to satisfy himself that his superior has proceeded with authority, but is to obey it according to its terms, the only exceptions recognized to the rule of obedience being cases of orders so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.

    United States v Rockwood, 48 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (in part quoting Dinsman v. Wilkes, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 390, 403, 13 L.Ed. 1036 (Dec. Term, 1851)) (emphasis added)

    You really should read the court martial of Michael G. New. Otherwise, you’re never going to understand why you lost in this case. (psst, you’re going to lose and you won’t get discovery!)

  212. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    It would mean it lacks authority to do so under direction from Obama.

    That’s of course a circular argument and thus until shown that President Obama is ineligible, the military has all the authority to do so. Furthermore, as US v New has shown, the military, and certainly individuals in the military, cannot raise such issues to excuse their failures to obey direct orders.

    Lakin did not swear an oath to aid the prosecution of any particular military action.

    Lakin is bound by the UCMJ and legal precedent. His claim that he swore an oath to the Constitution provides no excuse for him missing a troop movement or disobey a direct order.

    The issue of eligibility of the President is totally irrelevant to Lakin’s behavior. Imagine US tax payers refusing to pay traffic fines because the President is presumed to be ineligible.

    Let me predict:

    The Court will rule that the orders were legal and that the claim that President Obama is not eligible is irrelevant and furthermore covered by the political question doctrine.

    Lakin’s orders thus will be ruled to have been legal and the Court Martial has to decide an appropriate level of punishment.
    The Court Martial will return a guilty, which will be appealed. The Court of Appeals will sustain the ruling and the case will be appealed to the Civilian Courts where it will end when the Supreme Court will deny cert in 7-10 years from now.

    US v New.

  213. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Yes Greg, the law is clear. Too bad that some people lacked appropriate legal advise in these matters

  214. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    Because respect for the Constitution among jurists has been increasingly subverted by reliance on case law, and because nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being exposed as ineligible.

    The defense that you were disobeying an illegal order arose in the 1940s. Before then, it was unheard of to contend that you weren’t following orders because they were illegal. In 1867, one court said it like so:

    The first duty of a soldier is obedience, and without this there can be neither discipline nor efficiency in an army. If every subordinate officer and soldier were at liberty to question the legality of the orders of the commander, and obey them or not as they may consider them valid or invalid, the camp would be turned into a debating school, where the precious moment for action would be wasted in wordy conflicts between the advocates of conflicting opinions.

    McCall v. McDowell, 1 Abb. 212 (Cir. Ct. D. California 1867)

    So, I’m sorry, when did this disrespect for the Constitution arise? 1867? And were those judges afraid of Obama, too?

    You birthers don’t care about living in a nation of laws. You’d cut them all down if they would let you get at Obama.

    You birthers remind me of A Man for All Seasons:

    MORE No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact-I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God . . .
    (He says this last to himself)

    ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he’s gone!

    MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

    ROPER So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

    MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    ROPER I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man’s laws, not God’s-and if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

  215. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    Black Lion: No one is remotely afraid of that because a majority of Americans know that he is eligible.

    I don’t know who the Hell you think you’re kidding. At this point, no belief in Obama’s eligibility can be based on anything but faith.

    After 2 years of ridiculous theories and innuendo, not one piece of admissible evidence has ever been presented that has contradicted the facts that Obama was born in HI, thus eligible to be President.

    Actually, Obama’s refusal to release the original is prima facie evidence to the contrary; and regardless of codified rules of evidence, no jurist who cared about the truth would accept a COLB as dispositive WRT his birthplace.

    Jurists rely on case law because that is how the law works.

    Up to a point, yes.

    The Constitution is a fine document but is not perfect.Which is why it has been amended 27 times.

    And what precisely does that have to do with case law?

    And which is why the judical branch is tasked with interpretation of the document.

    Not exclusively, it isn’t. Anyone who swears an constitutional oath is duty bound to interpret it. Otherwise we have a government by men rather than laws.

  216. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being ineligible.

    What, exactly, are those repercussions? Is every military action taken illegally, or not?

    Anyway, talk of the fear of repercussions is mighty heady stuff coming from someone who said:

    The comparison to the 2K election is absurd, because to subject a presidential election to judicial review would be such a monumental undertaking in the practical sense that constitutional considerations are almost an afterthought.

    Apparently, though, unseating a sitting president and invalidating every action taken by that President isn’t so monumental. Forget that the Supreme Court put in place the de facto officer doctrine just because it would be so monumental. But, since Lakin needs to get out of going to Afghanistan, we’ll ignore that long-standing doctrine.

  217. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Otherwise we have a government by men rather than laws.

    You’ve got it backwards. If we allow each individual who swears an oath to have his own, personalized, interpretation of the Constitution, we have a government of men, not laws.

    Actually, Obama’s refusal to release the original is prima facie evidence to the contrary; and regardless of codified rules of evidence, no jurist who cared about the truth would accept a COLB as dispositive WRT his birthplace.

    Shorter yguy: Screw the law! Obama’s the devil, get him!

    You want to live in a nation of laws, yet you want to chuck the laws about birth certificates?

    Cognitive dissonance: Aisle 1!

  218. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    nbC:
    On the other hand, if american’ people want to have a duly elected President removed through non-constitutional approaches, they have thrown away the constitution

    The problem being, of course, that if he is not eligible, neither was he “duly elected”.

  219. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    The problem being, of course, that if he is not eligible, neither was he “duly elected”.

    Again, I understand that you have a prejudice towards President Obama however, until you have some credible evidence that the President is not eligible, this is pure speculation.

    As to his election, it met all the requirements laid out by the Constitution, the election, the electoral college, the counting of the votes, the Congress finding the Candidate to have qualified, the Supreme Court swearing in.

    So what now? Are you suggesting that because you have some concerns we ignore the Constitution?

  220. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    The problem being, of course, that if he is not eligible, neither was he “duly elected”.

    More nonsense. Duly elected refers to the process of election, not the qualifications.

    Did Obama stage a coup? No. Did 69 Million Americans vote for him? Yes. Was that enough to secure him 270 electoral votes? Yes.

    He was duly elected.

    You’re arguing that he was not duly qualified.

    The fact that it’s a different word should be a clue that it has a different meaning!

  221. avatar
    Bob Ross May 13, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    yguy: Actually, Obama’s refusal to release the original is prima facie evidence to the contrary; and regardless of codified rules of evidence, no jurist who cared about the truth would accept a COLB as dispositive WRT his birthplace.Up to a point, yes.And what precisely does that have to do with case law?Not exclusively, it isn’t. Anyone who swears an constitutional oath is duty bound to interpret it. Otherwise we have a government by men rather than laws.

    I’d say you have a grave misconception about what Prima facie means then. As for the long form, a long form certificate would be much easier to forge. So even if the law allowed the release of it you birthers would still be claiming its a forgery. This has nothing to do with the constitution it has to do with the tantrum you losers are throwing.

    I have a question: So if Obama is deemed inelligible who do you think would become President? Biden? Do you really want that?

  222. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    yguy: Actually, Obama’s refusal to release the original is prima facie evidence to the contrary; and regardless of codified rules of evidence, no jurist who cared about the truth would accept a COLB as dispositive WRT his birthplace.

    But Obama has released the COLB which is prima facie evidence of his birth on US soil.

    I find it fascinating that somehow you believe that the President has to prove his innocence…

    And you really believe that you are defending our Constitution?

    True jurists would understand the value of any birth certificate to establish the location of birth.

    I understand that you do not like what it states but why should we care about your ‘feelings’?

  223. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    Greg:
    The defense that you were disobeying an illegal order arose in the 1940s. Before then, it was unheard of to contend that you weren’t following orders because they were illegal.

    For all I know, that’s because illegal orders weren’t being given.

    So, I’m sorry, when did this disrespect for the Constitution arise? 1867?

    Arguably it can be traced back at least as far as Marbury v Madison.

    “The first duty of a soldier is obedience”

    Yes, but not necessarily to his CO.

  224. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Yes, but not necessarily to his CO.

    That’s ok, the soldier may disobey any order, however at his own risk. Especially if the order at first appearance is not blatantly illegal.

    Lakin gambled and he will likely lose as he disobeyed direct orders from his superiors and has no foundation to challenge the validity or legality of their orders.

    Mark my words… US v New

  225. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    yguy: “The first duty of a soldier is obedience”
    Yes, but not necessarily to his CO

    To whom then? Orly Taitz?

    We have an all volunteer military. Everyone knows the rules when they join. Those who want to follow their own star should pick a different career.

  226. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Yguy, interesting response. Most Americans believe that the President is eligible because of evidence. The COLB, the statements by Dr. Fukino and Gov. Lingle stating that the President was born in HI. But according to your theory, we believed that every other President was eligible because of “faith” also. We all know no other President released their Birth Certificate, school records, or anything else. So where was your shock and disbelief? Where were you running around demanding to see George Bush’s BC? You didn’t because you choose to belive, contrary to any real evidence, that Bush was born where he claimed that he was born. Same with Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. You just choose not to believe Obama, even with all of the evidence that shows that he was born in HI.

    You then state…

    “Actually, Obama’s refusal to release the original is prima facie evidence to the contrary; and regardless of codified rules of evidence, no jurist who cared about the truth would accept a COLB as dispositive WRT his birthplace.”

    So in your legal expertiese, refusal to release records that are protected by privacy laws is evidence of guilt? Do I have that correct? As I have said before, we all know you are nowhere close to a legal expert. You think that he is guilty even though you have to proof of his guilt other than not releasing documents that you feel will prove his guilt. Amazing. No wonder why you can’t argue with a birther. They have no clue. Just a hint, you are making the accusation so you are taked with providing the proof. Obama is not required to release anything to disprove your accusation.

    You then say “And what precisely does that have to do with case law?” Everything. You originally stated the following…

    “Because respect for the Constitution among jurists has been increasingly subverted by reliance on case law, and because nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being exposed as ineligible.”

    Your implication was that judges were ignoring the Constitution, like it was some sort of infallable document, in order to follow “case law”. My point was that the Constitution is not perfect, which is why it has been amended so many times. And following case law and precedent is what judges and lawyers do. That is the basis of our legal system. As I have said before you may want to become familar with how the legal system works before coming up with your preconcieved notions and opinions….

  227. avatar
    Don Draper May 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    If a reader clicks your link, they’ll see you’re quoting Ryder v. U.S. where SCOTUS decided the de facto officer doctrine does not apply to Federal officers who ignore, dismiss or do not hear a complaint concerning an alleged defect in their commission.

    There were numerous complaints abouts Obama’s eligibility prior to his being sworn in and numerous complaints after he was sworn in.

    The military and Federal employees wont’ be the ones required to make restitution for the usurper’s crimes, it will be the usurper and his syndicate that will pay.

  228. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    Greg:
    More nonsense. Duly elected refers to the process of election, not the qualifications.

    Had you bothered to read the decision, you’d know Powell’s constitutional eligibility per A1S2C2 was not at issue.

  229. avatar
    nemocapn May 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    yguy says:
    May 13, 2010 at 10:55 am yguy(Quote)
    The impeachment process presumes the President was legally inaugurated to begin with.

    The argument about whether or not impeachment is the proper course of action in disqualifying a federal officer who doesn’t meet the eligibility requirements was discussed in the Senate in 1849. Senator James Shields was a naturalized citizen who fell short of the constitutional requirement of nine years of citizenship. The Senate determined he was ineligible under the Constitution and discussed whether or not impeachment was the proper course. Shields’ election was considered by some to be void and by others to be voidable. Impeachment, resignation, or removal? In the end, Shields resigned and a resolution was passed declaring the election void.

    Senator Underwood said in the course of the debate, “Now, sir, if you look at the Constitution, you will find that non-age, alienage, and conviction upon impeachment, all amount to individual disqualification to hold office. But how do you reach it, sir? You reach it under another provision of the Constitution, which requires that each House shall be the judge of the elections and returns of its members; and when the House, upon proper investigation, comes to the conclusion that any member of the House has not attained the full age of thirty years, or that he is incapacitated by alienage, or that he has been convicted, upon impeachment, of some crime, then, sir, it is in virtue of the sentence of that tribunal which has investigated the facts that the office becomes vacant, and the member is turned out. Until that sentence is pronounced by the body, judging of the qualifications of its members, the original evidence of election stands perfectly unimpeached, and there is no question in regard to non-age, alienage, or impeachment, or any other disqualification which can possibly arise. It arises only, sir, upon investigation upon the part of this body, under its constitutional right to investigate the qualifications of its members.” Underwood also brought up the “de facto officer” doctrine which would mean that Shields’ acts as senator would be considered valid until the point he was disqualified by the Senate.

    While the President isn’t a member of the legislative branch, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides the Senate the power to disqualify a President just as they were empowered in the case of Senator Shields to disqualify him. The Constitution doesn’t say the Senate can disqualify a president with the exception of non-age, alienage, or lack of residency. The House and the Senate can investigate Obama’s eligibility requirements; and, if found to be lacking, he can be removed by the Senate or forced to resigned. This is what the constitution requires.

    If you can’t see a difference between recounting millions of ballots under court supervision and issuing a subpoena for documents that would take a judge maybe a half hour to look over, I don’t know what else to tell you….

    And you know as well as I do that this issue isn’t just about whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. There are still those people who contend Obama isn’t a natural born citizen because his father was a CUKC, and they want him to be removed from office by the courts or by a US Marshal. If you think making an end run around the legislative branch’s powers to disqualify a president elected by 69 million people is perfectly acceptable, while recounting 6 million votes to determine the will of the people of Florida is unacceptable, I don’t know what else to tell you, except that we can agree to disagree.

  230. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Scientist:
    To whom then?

    To the American people, the ultimate expression of whose collective will is the Constitution.

  231. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Arguably it can be traced back at least as far as Marbury v Madison.

    This was decided in 1803. Our nation existed under the Constitution for 16 before MvM and 207 years since.

    Since you’re pining for an ideal that hasn’t existed since 1803, maybe you’d be better served moving to another country.

    For all I know, that’s because illegal orders weren’t being given.

    You could remedy that whole “not knowing” thing by reading the case. It wasn’t premised on whether there was a history of legal orders, was it?

    not necessarily to his CO

    Okay, reading problems?

    Here’s the court’s statement again:

    The first duty of a soldier is obedience, and without this there can be neither discipline nor efficiency in an army. If every subordinate officer and soldier were at liberty to question the legality of the orders of the commander, and obey them or not as they may consider them valid or invalid, the camp would be turned into a debating school, where the precious moment for action would be wasted in wordy conflicts between the advocates of conflicting opinions.

    You can argue that the officer’s first duty is to the Constitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that officers do not have the liberty to refuse to follow orders that are facially valid.

    It’s pretty simple. If you have to go to court to prove that the order is unlawful, you have to follow the order!

    Where the order is apparently regular and lawful on its face, he is not to go behind it to satisfy himself that his superior has proceeded with authority, but is to obey it according to its terms, the only exceptions recognized to the rule of obedience being cases of orders so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.

  232. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Sven, when will the fantasy “time” come? Will that be about the same time you find the mythical adoption papers for Obama or discover the secret Obama US citizen renounciation that he did when he was 7? The fact is there is no usurper, unless you are discussing George W/ Bush and his first term. Becasuse in 2008 the individual with the most electoral and popular votes was elected President, and was certified by the US Congress. Barack Obama. You have nothing other than fantasy and fiction. But it is entertaining so we look forward to your next installment of your novel….

  233. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    Had you bothered to read the decision, you’d know Powell’s constitutional eligibility per A1S2C2 was not at issue.

    Of course, you read footnote 58:

    “Respondents cite one other exclusion during the period between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention 11 years later. In 1780 the Virginia Assembly excluded John Breckenridge because he was a minor. Minority, of course, was a traditional standing incapacity, and Charles Warren therefore appears to have been correct in concluding that this exclusion was probably based upon an interpretation of the state constitutional requirement that members must be duly qualified according to law.”

    Duly qualified, yguy, not duly elected.

  234. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    Greg:
    You’ve got it backwards. If we allow each individual who swears an oath to have his own, personalized, interpretation of the Constitution, we have a government of men, not laws.

    That’s certainly true in the absence of common sense – which, not coincidentally, one must ignore to believe there is no reasonable doubt about Obama’s eligibility.

    But yes, if an individual is incompetent to interpret the Constitution as it applies within his area of responsibility, he needs someone to do his thinking for him. Too bad for John Merryman that Abe Lincoln didn’t think like that, huh?

  235. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    The problem with US v Ryder is simple. The plaintiff argued that the civilian members had not be appointed by the President. However, here we have a case where the President was duly elected by all essential elements. While some may have raised objections, the ultimate arbiter on the issue was Congress who found the President to have qualified.

    There is no supervision of the Courts over this political issue question.

  236. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    does not apply to Federal officers who ignore, dismiss or do not hear a complaint concerning an alleged defect in their commission.

    Not so much, no.

    It found that in a criminal prosecution, a defendant who raises an appointments challenge against the trier of fact before that trier finishes adjudicating the issue is not barred by the de facto officer doctrine.

    Obama won’t be deciding Lakin’s fate, so he cannot rely on Ryder.

    Would you like to cite a different case, Don?

  237. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    To the American people, the ultimate expression of whose collective will is the Constitution.

    And according to the Constitution, our President was duly elected and removable only by process of impeachment.

    That there are some people who want to ignore the Constitution should not give any credibility to the concept that Lakin was bound by the UCMJ which clearly describes his duties and obligations.
    A claim that Lakin believes he is ‘protecting the Constitution’ is no defense, as Michael New found out in US v New. When he argued that the order was illegal because the deployment was unconstitutional, the Court not only ruled that the issue of legality could be decided by the Court and did not have to go before the Jury and furthermore observed that the constitutionality of the deployment was a political question.

    Same applies here.

  238. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Greg:
    Since you’re pining for an ideal that hasn’t existed since 1803,

    Since I never said anything like that, perhaps you’d care to limit your objections to what I have said.

    You can argue that the officer’s first duty is to the Constitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that officers do not have the liberty to refuse to follow orders that are facially valid.

    The question, of course, is whether orders which come from a nominal CiC whose legal authority is patently dubious are properly characterized as patently valid.

  239. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    That’s certainly true in the absence of common sense – which, not coincidentally, one must ignore to believe there is no reasonable doubt about Obama’s eligibility.

    Another foolish claim. Obama, by any admissible and credible evidence has been shown to be a natural born citizen due to his birth on US soil.

    But yes, if an individual is incompetent to interpret the Constitution as it applies within his area of responsibility, he needs someone to do his thinking for him. Too bad for John Merryman that Abe Lincoln didn’t think like that, huh?

    Still missing the point. If a soldier interprets the Constitution and then refuses to obey orders, such a step is made at his own risk, especially when there is no clear illegality in the orders.

    To allow soldiers to question political issues, or even ‘constitutional’ issues would turn our military into chaos.

  240. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    The question, of course, is whether orders which come from a nominal CiC whose legal authority is patently dubious are properly characterized as patently valid.

    That’s a leading question as there is no evidence that the President, who was duly sworn in should be considered to have dubious legal authority.
    The problem is that the authority of the President was resolved during the election, followed by the Congress and Supreme Court. To allow a continued challenge to the Presidency would be foolish, and anti-constitutional. Especially when there is no clear evidence that places ANY reasonable doubt upon Obama’s natural born status.

    Born on US soil, hence a natural born citizen.

  241. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    More nonsense. Duly elected refers to the process of election, not the qualifications.

    Had you bothered to read the decision, you’d know Powell’s constitutional eligibility per A1S2C2 was not at issue.

    Indeed, the issue is not qualifications but the process of election. Exactly as Greg tried to explain to you.

  242. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Greg:
    Of course, you read footnote 58:“Respondents cite one other exclusion during the period between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention 11 years later. In 1780 the Virginia Assembly excluded John Breckenridge because he was a minor. Minority, of course, was a traditional standing incapacity, and Charles Warren therefore appears to have been correct in concluding that this exclusion was probably based upon an interpretation of the state constitutional requirement that members must be duly qualified according to law.”Duly qualified, yguy, not duly elected.

    As you can see for yourself, that does not say Breckenridge was duly elected. The ruling says Powell was duly elected, but assumes he was also constitutionally eligible.

    So if you’re neurotic enough to retain your determination to win this paltry semantical point, you need to look elsewhere for support.

  243. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    As you can see for yourself, that does not say Breckenridge was duly elected. The ruling says Powell was duly elected, but assumes he was also constitutionally eligible.

    So if you’re neurotic enough to retain your determination to win this paltry semantical point, you need to look elsewhere for support.

    Oh my goodness… Is that your final answer? I assume you have abandoned hope on winning through reason and logic.

    The issue is quite relevant because ‘duly elected’ and ‘eligible’ are two very different concepts.

    In Powell

    Further, analysis of the “textual commitment” under Art. I, ΕΎ 5 (see Part VI, B (1)), has demonstrated that in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.

    Duly elected AND not ineligible to serve. Two separate steps.

  244. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Bob Ross:
    I’d say you have a grave misconception about what Prima facie means then.

    If you insist on laboring on such a misapprehension, no skin off my nose.

    you birthers

    You’ll forgive me for not being terribly keen on defending the opinions of people I know nothing about, I’m sure.

    I have a question:So if Obama is deemed inelligible who do you think would become President?Biden?Do you really want that?

    No. Why do you ask?

    Black Lion: Yguy, interesting response.Most Americans believe that the President is eligible because of evidence.The COLB, the statements by Dr. Fukino and Gov. Lingle stating that the President was born in HI.But according to your theory, we believed that every other President was eligible because of “faith” also.

    True enough. However, I’m aware of no other President who, when questioned about his eligibility, refused to release pertinent documentation; so perhaps up to now such faith was not unreasonable.

    We all know no other President released their Birth Certificate

    What other President fought discovery of it in court, after releasing a purported abstract thereof?

    So where was your shock and disbelief?Where were you running around demanding to see George Bush’s BC?You didn’t because you choose to belive, contrary to any real evidence,

    More accurately, in the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, which of course is not the case with Obama.

    that Bush was born where he claimed that he was born.Same with Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan.You just choose not to believe Obama, even with all of the evidence that shows that he was born in HI.You then state…“Actually, Obama’s refusal to release the original is prima facie evidence to the contrary; and regardless of codified rules of evidence, no jurist who cared about the truth would accept a COLB as dispositive WRT his birthplace.”So in your legal expertiese, refusal to release records that are protected by privacy laws is evidence of guilt?Do I have that correct?

    No. Refusal of an office holder to release records that bear directly on his qualifications for said office is prima facie evidence of the possibility that he is unqualified.

    As I have said before, we all know you are nowhere close to a legal expert.You think that he is guilty even though you have to proof of his guilt other than not releasing documents that you feel will prove his guilt.

    So why do you ask if you have it right and then evince such determination to get it wrong?

    My point was that the Constitution is not perfect,

    Yeah, and you apparently think the judiciary is legally empowered to compensate for such perceived imperfections, which of course is baloney.

  245. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    Let me make it extremely simple for you yguy. Lakin will be found guilty (or cut a deal before trial). I will put money on that-$100. You aren’t confident enough in your position to do the same. Or are you?

  246. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    nbC: The issue is quite relevant because duly elected’ and eligible’ are two very different concepts.

    No it isn’t, because both are required for anyone to hold office legally. If Obama is ineligible, we don’t have half a President, just a usurper.

  247. avatar
    Bob Ross May 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    yguy: If you insist on laboring on such a misapprehension, no skin off my nose.You’ll forgive me for not being terribly keen on defending the opinions of people I know nothing about, I’m sure.No. Why do you ask?True

    Again you don’t seem to understand prima facie and how it portends to a court of law. You think somehow not presenting a long form certificate, when a short form COLB is valid in court. The COLB is plenty valid when getting an id and passport. Somehow you think not presenting what you want presented in court somehow counts as prima facie evidence to contest the prima facie evidence in court. Your logic makes no sense.

    I asked you about who would be president because I’m curious as to how you would want this resolved. So I’ll ask you again. Who would be president in your mind if Obama was removed.

  248. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    No it isn’t, because both are required for anyone to hold office legally. If Obama is ineligible, we don’t have half a President, just a usurper.

    That is incorrect, if he is found to be ineligible he is not a usurper. The term usurper is someone who holds no color of title to the office. President Obama was duly elected by the people, the electoral college, found to have qualified by Congress and sworn in by SCOTUS.
    Ineligibility would not make the president a usurper, just a de facto rather than a de jure officer.

    Sigh…

  249. avatar
    nemocapn May 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    yguy: No. Refusal of an office holder to release records that bear directly on his qualifications for said office is prima facie evidence of the possibility that he is unqualified.

    Refused to release them to whom? What body has the authority to qualify or disqualify the President of the United States? The courts aren’t authorized by the Constitution to determine a president’s eligibility.

    Senator Allen G. Thurman was a justice on the Ohio State Supreme Court and the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1888. He dismissed the idea in 1877 that one could contest the presidency on any grounds in court even with a quo warranto.

    “It seems to me that these considerations abundantly show that the idea of contesting the office of Chief Magistrate of the United States in any court whatsoever is not to be entertained for a moment. I do not, therefore, agree with the Senator from Vermont that there can be any such contest. I do not think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the title of the persons declared in the joint assembly of the two Houses to be President, should remain in doubt for a single moment, but that, on the contrary, from the time he was declared to be elected all men should respect his title, for he was declared elected pursuant to the Constitution of the country. There might be error in deciding who was elected; every body of men is liable to commit error; courts are liable to commit error as well as congresses; the decision may be in favor of the wrong man; but the public safety and peace require that that decision, when once made, shall be final and irrevocable.”

  250. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    nbC: Obama, by any admissible and credible evidence has been shown to be a natural born citizen due to his birth on US soil.

    So the original BC is either not admissible or not credible.

    How very interesting.

    To allow soldiers to question political issues, or even constitutional’ issues would turn our military into chaos.

    More to the point, a CiC who refuses to release information that would presumably remove all doubt as to his authority cannot help but foster doubt among some under his command.

  251. avatar
    Bob Ross May 13, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    yguy: So the original BC is either not admissible or not credible.How very interesting.More to the point, a CiC who refuses to release information that would presumably remove all doubt as to his authority cannot help but foster doubt among some under his command.

    It wouldn’t remove all doubt and you know it. Its just an excuse for you guys. That’s why now you have people asking for a bunch of other random documents. Then you have people trying to claim the 2 citizen parent rule that doesn’t exist. You’re like the mouse in “If you give a mouse a cookie” No matter what he presents it won’t matter.

    It’s like the In Living Colour “Anonymous Express” skit.

  252. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    So the original BC is either not admissible or not credible.

    It’s not relevant as the COLB is for all legal purposes equivalent.

    More to the point, a CiC who refuses to release information that would presumably remove all doubt as to his authority cannot help but foster doubt among some under his command.

    Blame the victim, interesting…

  253. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    There may be some rule of evidence that says that; but common sense says otherwise, seeing the COLB is based on the long form and not the other way around.

    Common sense is not always that. All that is needed is the location of birth, and this was already presented in the COLB and confirmed by the DOH of Hawaii and incidental, contemporaneous information.

    The question is, why the ever moving goalposts? The President show the only document Hawaii has available and people want the full ‘original’ document. Then rumors about the original document being forged start, combined with foolish claims about other irrelevant records, and then in the end the argument is becoming: regardless of the location of birth, he is still ineligible.

    Why should the President cater to such foolishness and allow himself be distracted?

  254. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    yguy:
    No it isn’t, because both are required for anyone to hold office legally. If Obama is ineligible, we don’t have half a President, just a usurper.

    Just to clarify, I wouldn’t necessarily call him a usurper if he were born in the US and found ineligible on other grounds, because he wouldn’t necessarily have lied to get into office.

  255. avatar
    nbC May 13, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    Just to clarify, I wouldn’t necessarily call him a usurper if he were born in the US and found ineligible on other grounds, because he wouldn’t necessarily have lied to get into office.

    A slippery slope…

  256. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    yguy: So the original BC is either not admissible or not credible.How very interesting.More to the point, a CiC who refuses to release information that would presumably remove all doubt as to his authority cannot help but foster doubt among some under his command.

    1) No, the orignal BC is not unnecessary. A document that is prima facie evidence of birth was made available for public inspection. That is all you would need in a court of law. Just because there may be an alternate form of evidence for the same event has no bearing on the validity of the other. Both are sufficient, and the absence of one has no bearing on the validity of the other.

    2) We’ve heard the “if he just releases the document” argument many times…and half the time, it’s only a breath away from the laundry list of college, high school, and kindergarten records, which doesn’t matter anyway, because we’ve invented a new definition of NBC that would exclude him anyway, plus we’re inventing fantasy stories where a 4 year old child can renonuce their citizenship. Or they’ll just call it another forgery, like they did with the first. Why even acknowledge the fringe, when you know nothing will please them, and when the vast majority of them have no interest in the truth, and are simply looking to bring down the president…just like they tried with all the conspiracy myths about Clinton, drug rings, killings, etc. No evidence there either, but that didn’t stop them. You just ignore them, and make examples of the likes of Lakin.

  257. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    Yguy says…

    “No. Refusal of an office holder to release records that bear directly on his qualifications for said office is prima facie evidence of the possibility that he is unqualified.”

    You would be right except for the fact that the COLB was released and no specific requirements are prescribed in the Constitution regarding a BC other than for the President to be a natural born citizen, which in this case was for Obama to prove he was born in HI, which he did. The only individuals that could have objected, Congress, in which there are 535 of, did not object. So they felt that the evidence provided, the COLB was suffcient.

    “Yeah, and you apparently think the judiciary is legally empowered to compensate for such perceived imperfections, which of course is baloney.”

    Actually it is not. The judical branch is specifically empowered to interpret the Constitution, as well as any laws which are enacted. Judical rulings become de facto law, for example Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Ed. Those are examples of the judical branch stepping up to compensate and address issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution….

  258. avatar
    G May 13, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    yguy: you birthers

    You’ll forgive me for not being terribly keen on defending the opinions of people I know nothing about, I’m sure.

    LMAO! So now yguy is trying to distance himself from the “stink” of birther that is all over him?

    Sorry, dude. Like every other argument where you are trying to live in denial of reality, you are totally a birther – face it.

    We’ve heard your silly predictions and other nonsense on this case. The trial date has now been set.

    Our prediction stands – he’ll be prosecuted on the 2 issues he was charged with and no “discovery” requests on Obama will be granted.

    So, come back here after the trial and we’ll see who’s right.

  259. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    Actually the letter below, posted at the Post and Fail website, shows the main reason behind the entire Lakin issue. And it is about money. There are some people out there that have realized that the birthers are so overcome with hate of the President for whatever irrational reason, they will ignore common sense and donate to the cause….Read it, hilarious stuff….

    Dear Supporter of LTC Terry Lakin,

    The Army has now officially scheduled a formal hearing its case against Terry, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses –even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary– to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.

    The hearing will be held on June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. at 9:00 a.m. in room 134 of Building T-2. All proceedings are open to the media and public.

    The court martial process, which begins with the military’s equivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian criminal court, known as an “Article 32 Investigation” (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was commenced on May 3, 2010, when LTC Lakin was notified that the Art. 32 hearing would take place May 6, 2010. Lakin’s civilian lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, immediately requested a continuance to June 11, 2010, and this request has been granted. Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s corps.

    Your past generosity had enabled us to hire counsel and to prepare for the hearing, and we thank you so very much for your support. But you need to know that we continue to need your help to pay for witnesses to travel to Washington for this hearing (one of whom will be retired Major General Paul Vallely, who has spoken out publicly in support of Lakin!)

    We implore you to again stand with LTC Lakin who has put his very freedom on the line by inviting his own court martial in order to expose the corruption in our political system which has allowed our Constitution to be ignored, debased and disrespected.

    LTC Lakin, if convicted, will go to prison at Ft. Leavenworth for a very long time. You can continue to help prevent that by sending your most generous tax-deductible contribution to the American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund. You can do so by either visiting our website at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com, or by mailing your check, payable “American Patriot Foundation” to us at 1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20007.

    If you saw the interview last week that LTC Lakin and his civilian counsel, Paul Jensen, gave to CNN, then you are in good company. More than 200,000 people have watched it on youtube alone! While it was tough to go on a program where the questions were as hostile as we expected them to be, LTC Lakin was completely unafraid, and if anything, this helped prepare him for the cross examination he will face at trial.

    Once again, we are so grateful to you for standing with LTC Lakin both in the past and going forward; thanks and God bless.

    AMERICAN PATRIOT FOUNDATION, INC.

  260. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    nemocapn:
    Refused to release them to whom?

    Umm…the same people to whom he released the COLB?

    What body has the authority to qualify or disqualify the President of the United States?

    No body has authority to qualify the President WRT the NBC clause, as the requirements are as objective as it gets; but any government agent with the proper authority is certainly justified in publicly affirming that he is ineligible, if indeed that is the case.

    The courts aren’t authorized by the Constitution to determine a president’s eligibility.

    Since federal law cannot be written so as to abridge the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, neither can any law be so construed by a court. This being the case, any citizen has standing under the Constitution to bring before a court a legitimate grievance, as which the failure of government agents with proper authority to verify the constitutional eligibility of one elected to federal office surely qualifies.

  261. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    1)No, the orignal BC is not unnecessary.A document that is prima facie evidence of birth was made available for public inspection.

    Yes, a document of unknown provenance, which the DoH has refused to authenticate.

    That is all you would need in a court of law.

    And why exactly would a judge who cared about the facts consider prima facie evidence dispositive when possibly contradictory evidence is just as readily available?

    Just because there may be an alternate form of evidence for the same event has no bearing on the validity of the other.Both are sufficient, and the absence of one has no bearing on the validity of the other.

    Then why would the judge issue a subpoena for the COLB rather than for the original?

  262. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    G: We’ve heard your silly predictions

    That’s odd, seeing I don’t recall making any predictions.

  263. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    Since federal law cannot be written so as to abridge the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, neither can any law be so construed by a court. This being the case, any citizen has standing under the Constitution to bring before a court a legitimate grievance, as which the failure of government agents with proper authority to verify the constitutional eligibility of one elected to federal office surely qualifies.

    However, the right to petition is not the same thing as a constitutional right to get a response from the government, nor does it trump other provisions in the consitution that establish three co-equal branches of government. Additionally, the right to petition does not trump the requirement for courts to only address actual cases and controversies, so no, it doesn’t create a magic silver bullet to overcome this hurdle either.

    And finally, you can petition the government. Write a letter to your congressman, who is a member of the branch of government that can remove the president if they find a reason to. See how this solution doesn’t actually violate other provisions of the constitution?

  264. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Black Lion:

    “Yeah, and you apparently think the judiciary is legally empowered to compensate for such perceived imperfections, which of course is baloney.”

    Actually it is not.

    […]

    Those are examples of the judical branch stepping up to compensate and address issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution….

    Do you not see how you contradict yourself?

  265. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    How exactly have they refused to authenticate it?

    And under the FRE, assuming the pictures are accurate, it is a self-authenticating document. Unless you have admissiable evidence that actually undermines its authenticity, there is no need for any further authentication. And there is no admissiable contradictory evidence. Thus, there is no need to go any further.

    I get the feeling, you don’t quite understand what prima facie actually means. Prima facie evidence means that the evidence, standing alone and unexplained, or otherwise unsupported, is suffient to prove the fact. If contrary evidence is offered, this doesn’t cancel the evidence, it merely means the trier of fact balances the evidence to determine what evidence he feels is most trustworthy or compelling. Again, as not a shred of admissable evidence has yet to be offered, a judge would have no reason to look any further. And again, if a judge really required proof of birth, the COLB would be sufficient. You would have to give a very strong argument why a document that is considered sufficient under the FRE is not enough (i.e., if the information not reported on the COLB was the information that was actually relevant in the dispute).

  266. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    However, the right to petition is not the same thing as a constitutional right to get a response from the government,

    If the grievance has prima facie legitimacy, it most certainly is.

    nor does it trump other provisions in the consitution that establish three co-equal branches of government.

    And…?

    Additionally, the right to petition does not trump the requirement for courts to only address actual cases and controversies

    Which is what we have here, obviously.

    And finally, you can petition the government.Write a letter to your congressman,

    You think the petition clause was drafted to protect the right to write to congressmen?

    who is a member of the branch of government that can remove the president if they find a reason to.

    I wouldn’t expect a court to remove Obama, only to rule on his eligibility.

    See how this solution doesn’t actually violate other provisions of the constitution?

    What have I proposed that violates any constitutional provision?

  267. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    JoZeppy: How exactly have they refused to authenticate it?

    By refusing to comment on the doucment posted by Obama, obivously.

    I get the feeling

    I’m not interested in your feelings, thanks anyway.

    And again, if a judge really required proof of birth, the COLB would be sufficient.

    And by your own admission, so would the original…so why not subpoena that instead of the COLB?

    Hmmmm?

  268. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    yguy: If the grievance has prima facie legitimacy, it most certainly is.And…?Which is what we have here, obviously.You think the petition clause was drafted to protect the right to write to congressmen?I wouldn’t expect a court to remove Obama, only to rule on his eligibility.What have I proposed that violates any constitutional provision?

    No, there is no requirement anywhere in the Constitution for the goverment to respond to your redress. You have a right to complain. Not a right to get a response. Please show me where you find such a right.

    Look up the requirements for standing. They’ve been repeated here many times, and Wiki might even have a half way decent explanation. One of those requirements is redressability. If you expect the court to rule on, but do nothing about Obama’s NBC status, then there is no relief the court can grant. By your own words, there can be no standing.

  269. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    <What have I proposed that violates any constitutional provision?

    1) Violation of case/controvery: asking the court for what comes down to an advisory opionion. Give a legal opinion that the court does not have the power to, or you are not asking for to redress.

    2) Separation of power/political question: Asking the court to come down on a subject that the constitution has clearly given to other branches of government (determination of who has qualified to hold the office of president)

  270. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    yguy: By refusing to comment on the doucment posted by Obama, obivously.I’m not interested in your feelings, thanks anyway.And by your own admission, so would the original…so why not subpoena that instead of the COLB?Hmmmm?

    I would think the statement, “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.” Actually carries more weight than saying, “the document is real.” And again, unless you can provide some evidence that the document is not as it appears in the pictures, it is a self authenticating document, and requires no additional statements. The fact that you have a statement saying he is born in Hawai’i is just another layer of proof.

    Perhaps you shouldn’t be so defensive when point out that you don’t have a firm grasp on a word you throw around quite frequently. I’m sure you’re not interested in my advice either, but using legal terms in a forum frequented by many attorneys, it is in your best interest to have a solid grasp of how to use them.

    As for your subpoena the original question…first off, I don’t see how you would ever get a court case to the point where you would have an opportunity to subpoena the document. If a case ever did come up where by some miracle they had standing, all the president would have to do is dig up that very same COLB that was posted on factcheck, produce it to the other side, and file a Motion for Summary Judgment. End of case. If something can be dismissed quickly and efficiently, do you honestly think the court is going to waste everybody’s time with extended discovery and subpoenas so you can have the type of evidence you feel you’re entitled to? No. They’ll just say, “oh, the party produced this self authenticating document. You have no admissable evidence to counter. You lose.” The case wouldn’t survive long enough for you to make demands for what you wanted.

  271. avatar
    BlackLion May 13, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    How did I contradict myself? My point originally was that the Constitution is an imperfect document, hence the judicary, especially the SCOTUS….

  272. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    No, there is no requirement anywhere in the Constitution for the goverment to respond to [a legitimate grievance].You have a right to complain.Not a right to get a response.Please show me where you find such a right.

    I already have.

    Look up the requirements for standing.

    Last time I checked, the prevailing view is that the petitioner needs to suffer tangible harm or something to that effect; but of course the petition clause admits no such limitation.

    If you expect the court to rule on, but do nothing about Obama’s NBC status, then there is no relief the court can grant.

    That is absurd, since no federal court is empowered to do anything whatsoever, as Hamilton observed so emphatically in Federalist #78.

  273. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    However, the right to petition is not the same thing as a constitutional right to get a response from the government,

    YGUY: If the grievance has prima facie legitimacy, it most certainly is.

    Using fancy words is not going to make any difference. The right to petition is not the same as the right to have one’s grievances addressed.

    The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard.

  274. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    I wouldn’t expect a court to remove Obama, only to rule on his eligibility.

    The court is not in the business of providing such rulings. Without a remedy there is no reason for the courts to get involved.

  275. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    1)Violation of case/controvery:asking the court for what comes down to an advisory opionion.

    No, a petitioner could sue the AG under the take care clause, to demonstrate that he has taken reasonable measures to confirm the eligibility of the sitting President, including examination of the original documentation. If discovery showed that Obama was born in HI, the relief would be that the petitioner – along with every other American of good will – is reassured as to the legal authority of the President; and if not, presumably the citizenry would prevail upon members of the other branches to act accordingly.

    2)Separation of power/political question:Asking the court to come down on a subject that the constitution has clearly given to other branches of government (determination of who has qualified to hold the office of president)

    There is nothing in the constitution that speaks directly to that issue in the case of constitutional requirements. Neither, AFAIK, is there relevant any case law. Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993) has only tangential bearing, and Powell v McCormack is a clean miss.

  276. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    And by your own admission, so would the original…so why not subpoena that instead of the COLB?

    Hmmmm?

    Because the COLB is the only legal document the State of Hawaii is providing for?

    Hmmm…

    Bummer eh..

  277. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Last time I checked, the prevailing view is that the petitioner needs to suffer tangible harm or something to that effect; but of course the petition clause admits no such limitation.

    Yeah, let’s make sure one does not actually familiarize oneself with the concept and pretend that the legal standing comes from the petition clause.

    Unwilling to learn, doomed to repeat the same foolishness

  278. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    That is not what the term legal relief is all about.

    Sigh…

  279. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    Furthermore, there appears to be no requirement for the AG to make the determination of eligibility.

    Sigh sigh.

  280. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    yguy: I already have.Last time I checked, the prevailing view is that the petitioner needs to suffer tangible harm or something to that effect; but of course the petition clause admits no such limitation.That is absurd, since no federal court is empowered to do anything whatsoever, as Hamilton observed so emphatically in Federalist #78.

    You are asking the court to make a ruling, that they have no power to resolve one way or another. As you stated, you just want them to determine if he is qualified. I don’t care what clause you imagine your claim to fall arise under, the courts simply cannot do this. If a court cannot provide a remedy, there is no case or controvery, and it is beyond the scope of the federal courts.

  281. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    yguy: No, a petitioner could sue the AG under the take care clause, to demonstrate that he has taken reasonable measures to confirm the eligibility of the sitting President, including examination of the original documentation. If discovery showed that Obama was born in HI, the relief would be that the petitioner – along with every other American of good will – is reassured as to the legal authority of the President; and if not, presumably the citizenry would prevail upon members of the other branches to act accordingly.There is nothing in the constitution that speaks directly to that issue in the case of constitutional requirements. Neither, AFAIK, is there relevant any case law. Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993) has only tangential bearing, and Powell v McCormack is a clean miss.

    Sure you can sue, but it will be dismissed for lack of standing. AGs have wide discretion for the cases they persue. Just like any other case you bring, you still need to show invidualized harm, redressiblity, and all that other fun stuff.

    As for the courts reviewing constitutional requirements….perhaps you should read a few of Orly’s long line of dismissals. I’m too lazy myself to look them up no, but I do recall every single DoJ motion to dismiss has argued political question.

  282. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Courts are not Constitutional Commissions to which questions can be referred. They decide actual cases. Let’s say Congress wants to know if a proposed law is constitutional. Can they ask the Supreme Court to give an opinion? No. All they can do is pass it and wait for someone to challenge it and then see whether the Court strikes it down.

    You can get opinions by asking recognized legal scholars. What do they say about Obama’s eligibility? Unanimously, they say he’s eligible. What has the one Court that actually ruled on Obama’s eligibility said? That he is eligible (Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v Daniels).

    You can construe the law however you like in your own mind. However, despite over 70 attempts, no court has seen things your way. What part of 0-70 do you not get?

  283. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    I would think the statement, “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.” Actually carries more weight than saying, “the document is real.”

    Guess you forgot what question you asked.

    And again, unless you can provide some evidence that the document is not as it appears in the pictures, it is a self authenticating document, and requires no additional statements.

    Even if it’s a forgery, huh?

    The fact that you have a statement saying he is born in Hawai’i is just another layer of proof.

    Before you presume yet again to lecture me on the definition of “prima facie”, learn the difference between evidence and proof.

    If something can be dismissed quickly and efficiently, do you honestly think the court is going to [spend time on] extended discovery and subpoenas

    That would clearly be the right thing to do, given the import of the question. What any court would do I can’t answer for.

  284. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    Even if it’s a forgery, huh?

    Given the fact that most of the data have been confirmed, why the silly idea that it is a forgery?

    That would clearly be the right thing to do, given the import of the question. What any court would do I can’t answer for.

    The right thing to do… According to what standard? I’d say that the Courts are doing way too much already, but that’s how our system works.

  285. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    nbc:
    Yeah, let’s make sure one does not actually familiarize oneself with the concept and pretend that the legal standing comes from the petition clause.

    I didn’t say it does. I said any rule defining standing is superseded by the petition clause whenever the two conflict.

  286. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    nbc:
    Given the fact that most of the data have been confirmed, why the silly idea that it is a forgery?

    I didn’t say it is, I just noted that it could be; and obviously the easiest way for a judge to be sure is to subpoena the COLB and/or the original from the DoH.

    The right thing to do… According to what standard?

    Common sense.

  287. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    yguy: I said any rule defining standing is superseded by the petition clause whenever the two conflict.

    What the F are you talking about? The petition clause has nothing to do with the courts. It says you have the right to petition your representatives. That means you can collect signatures at the mall or march on Washington (lawfully). It doesn’t guarantee that your representatives will listen to you-if they don’t your remedy is your vote, not a frivolous lawsuit.

    You come here and make laughable misstatements. For Pete’s sake, at least label them properly as “just your opinion”; stop pretending they are facts. Pretending that your opinions are facts is lying.

    “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts”-Sen Daniel Moynihan

  288. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    I didn’t say it does. I said any rule defining standing is superseded by the petition clause whenever the two conflict.

    Too bad the courts do not appear to be agreeing with you.

    Interesting hypothesis but not really with much foundation so far.
    The right to petition does not mean that your grievance should be heard or even addressed. Surely you do understand this?

  289. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    I didn’t say it is, I just noted that it could be; and obviously the easiest way for a judge to be sure is to subpoena the COLB and/or the original from the DoH.

    Why? Just because something ‘could be’ does not mean that we should take it serious and take action.

    Thank God for that.

  290. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    yguy: I didn’t say it is, I just noted that it could be; and obviously the easiest way for a judge to be sure is to subpoena the COLB and/or the original from the DoH.

    If a case arises where it were relevant they would. None have so far. Cases have to pass certain barriers to reach the point of taking testimony. None have. That is the birthers fault, not Obama’s. They failed to get plaintiffs with standing. They failed to file in the right court at the right time. Once the inauguration occurred all the cases became moot under the political doctrine. That isn’t me who says so, it’s judges.

    In 2012, if the birthers can get their act together (doubtful) they could have another shot. Then the court would look at the COLB. Don’t get your hopes up that they will find it to be fraudulent, because it is quite genuine.

  291. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    The right thing to do… According to what standard?

    Common sense.

    You call that a standard? You mean a hunch by a few makes it the right thing to do?…

    Common Sense dictates otherwise.

  292. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    nbc: Furthermore, there appears to be no requirement for the AG to make the determination of eligibility.

    Nothing explicit in the Constitution, but the take care clause says the President is to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, and the AG seems the logical choice to act in the President’s stead in this case, political realities aside.

  293. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Nothing explicit in the Constitution, but the take care clause says the President is to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, and the AG seems the logical choice to act in the President’s stead in this case, political realities aside.

    Constitutional, political, judicial realities aside, this is quite far fetched argument.

    So let me get this right, you want to have the AG sued for something that may or may not be his duty so that some people who have concerns feel better.

    Note how little legal and judicial relevance there is to your arguments. No wonder you hide behind the concept of ‘common sense’ even though it is neither.

    Question: To whom does the Constitution assign the qualification of the Candidate for President?

  294. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    nbc:
    Why? Just because something could be’ does not mean that we should take it serious and take action.

    Especially if you don’t much care to know the truth.

    Thank God for that.

    Yes, I’m sure it would be absolutely catastrophic if the original were published under court order and found to be veridical. πŸ™‚

  295. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    yguy: Guess you forgot what question you asked.Even if it’s a forgery, huh?Before you presume yet again to lecture me on the definition of “prima facie”, learn the difference between evidence and proof.That would clearly be the right thing to do, given the import of the question. What any court would do I can’t answer for.

    The burden is on you to prove it’s a forgery. There is none. As for the difference between evidence and proof, I may have been a little sloppy in my use. Her statement is another strand of evidence that comined with all else is proof of Obama’s birth in Hawai’i. Now perhaps you’ll do the same and correct the error of your ways.

    The import of a question doesn’t change the requirements on the parties. If you have no evidence what so ever, and the other side has a document, that is sufficient to prove their case, even if there are thousands of documents that you may feel prove their case, even “more betterer” they’ve already done all they need to. You aren’t entitled to higher level of proof just because you feel you’re entitled to it, or it’s a really important issue. It is not even the right thing to do. It’s a waste of scarce judicial resources, and tax payer money.

  296. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    yguy: I didn’t say it is, I just noted that it could be; and obviously the easiest way for a judge to be sure is to subpoena the COLB and/or the original from the DoH.Common sense.

    You see, that’s how this little “prima facie evidence” comment along the bottom of the document works. Unless you can show a reason why the document should not be trusted, the document, all by itself is all the evidence a court need. The burden is on you to show why the document cannot be relied on before a court will even bother spending any time looking at anything else.

  297. avatar
    JoZeppy May 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    yguy: I didn’t say it does. I said any rule defining standing is superseded by the petition clause whenever the two conflict.

    the problem with your argument is that the standing requirement is a Constitutional limit on the jurisdiction of the courts. So your petition clause, which has never been interpreted to a right to have a court decide your question (well, unless you consider dismissing your case for lack of standing “deciding your question”), cannot overrule a limit placed on the court by the Consitution itself.

  298. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    BlackLion:My point originally was that the Constitution is an imperfect document, hence the judicary, especially the SCOTUS….

    The judicial power does not extend to “constitutional repair”. If there is no remedy under existing law, all the court can do is say so and leave it to Congress or the states to furnish a remedy by statute or amendment, respectively.

  299. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 8:55 pm #

    Especially if you don’t much care to know the truth.

    That’s a foolish argument. One can doubt anything, claiming that one is interested in the truth but then one will certainly never find the truth.

    Common Sense dictates that when data overwhelmingly and conclusively support a fact that it is rather foolish to further pursue it under the veil of ‘finding the truth’.

    Luckily the Court has ways to prevent such abuse of resources.

  300. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    You see, that’s how this little “prima facie evidence” comment along the bottom of the document works.Unless you can show a reason why the document should not be trusted

    And I can: Obama’s refusal to release the original, after releasing the purported COLB.

  301. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    And I can: Obama’s refusal to release the original, after releasing the purported COLB.

    So let me get this straight. Obama releases his COLB and when people then require him to release more and more data, and he refuses, that somehow is a reason the document should not be trusted?

    Weird…

  302. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    yguy: And I can: Obama’s refusal to release the original, after releasing the purported COLB

    Show me an official request from anyone and an official refusal from him. No court case ever got to the point that this was ever an issue.

    You seem to think that everyone has to do something because you want it. Did your parents give you everything you wanted when you were a small child?

  303. avatar
    ron May 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    What I think many are missing including the LTcol, is that for now this is a military matter,and will be settled by military standards. I have posted on here the legal docs acceptable to verify citzenship as far as military processing is concerned and by military standards the certified state COB is sufficent. So as far as the miltary is concerned the COB states born in HAWAII and that is proof enough by military processing standards.(PLACE OF BIRTH IS IMPORTANT TO THE MILTARY BECAUSE ALTHOUGH CITENSHIP IS NOT REQUIRED THERE ARE HOSTILE COUNTRIES THAT IF YOU ARE BORN THERE YOU CANNOT ENLIST without a waiver) No one can make more stringent rules on the spot for different applicants that would be discrimination and illegal. The certified COB is accepted for all to Enlist and the info on it is accepted as fact Even if a law was passed to require a long form only or long form plus another in current order curently accepted it would not be retroactive. As a military recruiter I could not make my own requirements to certify citizenship. I had to go by the order (posted on here, and not edited) and it says a certified COB is sufficient to verify citizenship. And that also means any info on it is accepted as fact. the place of birth is on the COB which has to be verified to present hostile country citizens from joining unless they receive a waiver, And the military accepts what is own the COB as fact of country of birth. So the Ltcol’s own statement has condemned him(saying the president won’t submit what all miltary have to to join) They can submit any document listed in the order (posted previously)to verify citizenship and eligibiliy even a passport. The president provided a COB, The state of HI has verified it is true. The miltary orders say that those events are enough to satsfy citizenship and country of birth. these are the facts, that is the order, look it up. Case closed.

  304. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    nbc: Common Sense dictates that when data overwhelmingly and conclusively support a fact that it is rather foolish to further pursue it under the veil of finding the truth’.

    Sure, if no readily available data are being suppressed, but that’s not the slice of reality we’re living in.

  305. avatar
    Bob Ross May 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Show me reagan’s Long form birth certificate

  306. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

    Sure, if no readily available data are being suppressed, but that’s not the slice of reality we’re living in.

    That’s just non-sensical. All the data point to a single fact but you want more. Is there no end to this foolishness. The COLB which was released has all the relevant data.

    Nothing is being ‘suppressed’, it’s just that you have not explained why the data should be released, other than based on what you somewhat confusingly have called ‘common sense’

  307. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    the problem with your argument is that the standing requirement is a Constitutional limit on the jurisdiction of the courts.

    Here is what lectlaw has to say about standing, my emphasis:

    There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

    […]

    Where exactly in the Constitution do you find requirement (1)?

  308. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    When you have to resort to obvious lies, you’ve lost the argument.

    Ah, now we have an accusation of lying… Very good yguy…

    I guess that under your ‘rules’ you have lost the argument?

  309. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    Where exactly in the Constitution do you find requirement (1)?

    Why do you not study the caselaw which was developed that led to the present requirements for standing?
    Do you really believe that the Supreme Court just invented this? Surely without an injury of a protected interest, there is no real controversy.

  310. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    nbc:
    Why do you not study the caselaw which was developed that led to the present requirements for standing?

    Cite a case that explains requirement (1) in light of the petition clause and I’ll have a look.

    Do you really believe that the Supreme Court just invented this?

    It doesn’t matter whether they did or not. What matters is how requirement (1) can reasonably be inferred from anything in the Constitution.

  311. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    Where exactly in the Constitution do you find requirement (1)?

    Lectlaw didn’t have footnotes?

    Annotated Constitution – about 50 pages on the development of the doctrine of standing. It started from the very first day:

    Late in the Convention, a delegate proposed to extend the judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution of the United States as well as under its laws and treaties. Madison’s notes continue: “Mr. Madison doubted whether it was not going too far to extend the jurisdiction of the Court generally to cases arising under the Constitution, and whether it ought not to be limited to cases of a Judiciary Nature. The right of expounding the Constitution in cases not of this nature ought not to be given to that Department.

    “The motion of Docr. Johnson was agreed to nem : con : it being generally supposed that the jurisdiction given was constructively limited to cases of a Judiciary nature—”.292

    That the Framers did not intend for federal judges to roam at large in construing the Constitution and laws of the United States but rather preferred and provided for resolution of disputes arising in a “judicial” manner is revealed not only in the language of Sec. 2 and the passage quoted above but as well in the refusal to associate the judges in the extra–judicial functions which some members of the Convention—Madison and Wilson notably—conceived for them. Thus, four times proposals for associating the judges in a council of revision to pass on laws generally were voted down,293 and similar fates befell suggestions that the Chief Justice be a member of a privy council to assist the President294 and that the President or either House of Congress be able to request advisory opinions of the Supreme Court.295

    The founders wanted things to come to the judiciary which were judiciable problems – things which were of a “Judiciary Nature.” What does that mean? One party is concretely harmed, and one party is alleged to have done the harming!

    Duh!

    Generalized standing, tax-payer or citizen-suits were the recent invention and a restricted doctrine of standing was the return to the founders intent.

  312. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 13, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    yguy: Lingle was not under hostile interrogation. Jensen clearly was.

    While Jensen was under hostile interrogation, as you say, his answers were his prepared talking points. Cooper was clearly winning and Jensen’s only recourse was an audacious lie. Unfortunately Cooper didn’t have a copy of the statue in front of him, or Jensen would have been finished. Instead Cooper ended the interview.

  313. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    yguy, the Founders did imagine a limit on the jurisdiction of Federal courts and you have to have a grievance to petition government for redress. Balancing the right to redress grievances with the need to impose realistic limits on the use of the courts, the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Button said:

    Although the State surely may not broadly prohibit individuals with a common interest from joining together to petition a court for redress of their grievances, it is equally certain that the State may impose reasonable regulations limiting the permissible form of litigation and the manner of legal representation within its borders. Thus the State may, without violating protected rights, restrict those undertaking to represent others in legal proceedings to properly qualified practitioners. And it may determine that a corporation or association does not itself have standing to litigate the interests of its shareholders or members — that only individuals with a direct interest of their own may join to press their claims in its courts. Both kinds of regulation are undeniably matters of legitimate concern to the State and their possible impact on the rights of expression and association is far too remote to cause any doubt as to their validity.

    371 US 415 (1963)

  314. avatar
    yguy May 13, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Greg: The founders wanted things to come to the judiciary which were judiciable problems – things which were of a “Judiciary Nature.”

    I stand in awe of your penetrating insight.

    What does that mean? One party is concretely harmed, and one party is alleged to have done the harming!
    Duh!

    Swell. Where do you find that definition in the Constitution, or even anything you quoted?

  315. avatar
    Greg May 13, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Swell. Where do you find that definition in the Constitution, or even anything you quoted?

    Come back after you’ve read the 50 pages I linked to. I’m tired of holding the hand of birther wannabe lawyers.

    You won’t like it, though. Just more reliance on “case law.” Just ignore it and substitute your own “special” interpretation of the Constitution. Then, when your side loses, you can blame it on the fact that the Constitution has been subverted starting in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

  316. avatar
    nbc May 13, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    Cite a case that explains requirement (1) in light of the petition clause and I’ll have a look.

    Lujan v Wildlife Defender. The classic. Follow the references to earlier cases.

    Do you really believe that the Supreme Court just invented this?

    It doesn’t matter whether they did or not. What matters is how requirement (1) can reasonably be inferred from anything in the Constitution

    One does not go without the other silly…

  317. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    Greg: yguy, the Founders did imagine a limit on the jurisdiction of Federal courts and you have to have a grievance to petition government for redress. Balancing the right to redress grievances with the need to impose realistic limits on the use of the courts, the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Button said:

    I have no idea how you think any of that supports your position. Imposing requirements on qualifications for attorneys does not patently abridge the right to petition when the pro se option remains available; and determining that corporations can’t litigate on behalf of stockholders seems a far cry from declaring the last line of defense in the perpetual war against tyranny of the majority to be unavailable to the citizenry on the grounds that the governmental perfidy to which the petitioner objects will afflict his descendants, and those of his countrymen, rather than himself.

  318. avatar
    Rickey May 14, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    yguy says:

    Where do you find that definition in the Constitution, or even anything you quoted?

    The fact that you can’t find it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that every Federal judge has found it, and every Supreme Court justice has found it. It’s the law.

    Standing is the principle which prevents U.S. citizens from paralyzing the government by filing endless lawsuits about every statute and policy decision which with they disagree. It is the principle which prevented anti-war activists from claiming in court that the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere were or are unconstitutional.

    As the Supreme Court ruled in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992):

    This Court has consistently held that a plaintiff claiming only a generally available grievance about government, unconnected with a threatened concrete interest of his own, does not state an Article III case or controversy. See, e. g., Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129-130. Vindicating the public interest is the function of the Congress and the Chief Executive. To allow that interest to be converted into an individual right by a statute denominating it as such and permitting all citizens to sue, regardless of whether they suffered any concrete injury, would authorize Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Art. II, § 3. Pp. 15-23.

    As for petitions, the First Amendment guarantees the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” but there is nothing in the Constitution which requires the government to act upon a petition.

  319. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    nbc: Lujan v Wildlife Defender

    Assuming you mean Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), I don’t see any reference to the petition clause in any of those opinions, so you’re going to have to provide a relevant quote or two.

  320. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:29 am #

    Tyranny, perfidy, last line of defense. Lofty and airy words from someone who doesn’t seem to realize that petition for redress of grievances came from the Magna Carta and meant until late in the 20th Century only petitions sent to the legislative branch. Only recently was the right to petition courts recognized. Anyway, I guess you missed the part where the state can limit access to the court to “individuals with a direct interest of their own …”

  321. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    Assuming you mean Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), I don’t see any reference to the petition clause in any of those opinions, so you’re going to have to provide a relevant quote or two.

    Here’s an idea. You show us a single case where the court has expanded standing based on the petition clause.

    Or, tell us exactly what you’re trying to argue and then show us a case that supports that.

  322. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    How fascinating, seems to me that yguy has not even a case to support his assertion about the petition clause.

    Hilarious…

  323. avatar
    nbC May 14, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    yguy may want to do some research before making further comments on the topic of standing and the petition clause.

  324. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 1:35 am #

    Wow. Just wow. You folks are just taking this yguy fella and having him for lunch!

    Shorter summary of entire yguy argument: “I’m not a real lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!”

    LMAO!

  325. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    Greg: Tyranny, perfidy, last line of defense. Lofty and airy words from someone who doesn’t seem to realize that petition for redress of grievances came from the Magna Carta and meant until late in the 20th Century only petitions sent to the legislative branch. Only recently was the right to petition courts recognized.

    Guess irrelvance trumps loftiness every time, huh?

    Anyway, I guess you missed the part where the state can limit access to the court to “individuals with a direct interest of their own …”

    Aside from the fact that you had to butcher that quote to make it say what you want, you have yet to square it with the petition clause.

  326. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 10:16 am #

    nbc:
    Because the COLB is the only legal document the State of Hawaii is providing for?

    HRS §338-13 and §338-18 require the DoH to make a certified copy of the original as accessible to the registrant as is the COLB.

  327. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    Greg:
    Come back after you’ve read the 50 pages I linked to.

    To Hell with that. What you’ve provided so far suggests I’d be rummaging through a haystack for a needle that probably isn’t there to begin with.

  328. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    yguy: To Hell with that. What you’ve provided so far suggests I’d be rummaging through a haystack for a needle that probably isn’t there to begin with.

    “Don’t make me do stuff… I’m reading superfudge”

  329. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    That’s Holiday Inn Express

  330. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Greg:
    Here’s an idea. You show us a single case where the court has expanded standing based on the petition clause.

    If I can’t, what do you imagine it proves?

    Or, tell us exactly what you’re trying to argue

    That requirement (1) as cited from lectlaw can’t be justified under the petition clause.

    and then show us a case that supports that.

    No, you show me a case that addresses my argument, since you guys are the case law worshipers.

  331. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    Sorry I haven’t been paying attention to what you’re claiming. What is your claim again? What are you trying to use the petition clause for?

  332. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Bob Ross: That’s Holiday Inn Express

    Bob… actually, I intentionally left the Express off. A further subtle dig at yguy that he wouldn’t even be able to get that right! πŸ˜‰

  333. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    No you didn’t Obama made you do it! CONSPIRACY!!!!

    Well that’s the answer I’m waiting to hear

  334. avatar
    Bovril May 14, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Yguty,

    For Gods sake get with the program

    §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]

    Which is exactly what Obama’s COLB is…..a selected copy OF THE CONTENTS…..not a copy of the entire document….

  335. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Rickey: yguy says:
    Where do you find that definition in the Constitution, or even anything you quoted?The fact that you can’t find it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that every Federal judge has found it, and every Supreme Court justice has found it. It’s the law.

    Then why can’t YOU find it so as to point it out?

    As the Supreme Court ruled in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992):This Court has consistently held that …

    First of all, you’re quoting from a syllabus, which carries no legal weight. Second, Scalia’s cite of Fairchild is incomplete. Here it is with some context:

    Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the federal courts a suit to secure by indirection a determination whether a statute, if passed, or a constitutional amendment about to be adopted will be valid.

    So essentially Brandeis was affirming the impropriety of advisory opinions, which is as unhelpful in this context as it is uncontroversial in general.

  336. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    Bovril: Which is exactly what Obama’s COLB is…..a selected copy OF THE CONTENTS…..not a copy of the entire document….

    The point is, if he wants a certified copy of the original, the law says he – or anyone qualifying under §338-18 (b) (9) – can get one.

    So the COLB is not “the only legal document the state of Hawaii is providing for.”

  337. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    If I can’t, what do you imagine it proves?

    That you don’t know what you’re talking about. That you’re pulling a meaning of the right to petition out of your nethers and that no court has ever agreed with you that it acts to limit the doctrine of standing.

    To Hell with that. What you’ve provided so far suggests I’d be rummaging through a haystack for a needle that probably isn’t there to begin with.

    Like I said, you wouldn’t like it. It cites to case law, and that case law doesn’t agree with your orifice-based interpretation of the First Amendment right to petition the government.

    But, you know what, you’re right. Lectlaw was making that requirement of standing up. Or, the Supreme Court completely missed the meaning of the right to petition. If only they had had you to write an amicus brief then, maybe, Scalia wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself when he said:

    Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) “actual or imminent, not `conjectural’ or `hypothetical,’ ” Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id., at 38, 43.

    [n.1] By particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.

    So, too, was Burger mistaken in Schlessinger v. Reservists when he wrote:

    The Court has today recognized the continued vitality of Levitt, [n9] United States v. Richardson, ante, at 176-179; see also Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13 (1972). We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here, which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties’ treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.

    Obviously, if Burger was mistaken in reaffirming the principles of Levitt, the Supreme Court was wrong in Levitt when they wrote:

    It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. Tyler v. Judges, 179 U.S. 405, 406; Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524, 534; Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 549, 550; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488. The motion is denied.

    And, that makes Tyler v. Judges (1900) wrong:

    The prime object of all litigation is to establish a right asserted by the plaintiff or to sustain a defense set up by the party pursued. Save in a few instances where, by statute or the settled practice of the courts, the plaintiff is permitted to sue for the benefit of another, he is bound to show an interest in the suit personal to himself, and even in a proceeding which he prosecutes for the benefit of the public, as, for example, in cases of nuisance, he must generally aver an injury peculiar to himself, as distinguished from the great body of his fellow citizens.

    Obviously, then, you are squandering immense legal talent by posting here, yguy. As far as I can tell, not a single court has applied the right to petition to limit the application of standing – not in the entire history of the nation. Obviously, the court is being stymied by the history of the Petition clause. Obviously, since Lujan is the law of the land, there is an immense need among groups like Wildlife defenders to break that doctrine.

    If you can get around standing using the petition clause, yguy, you could write your own ticket to partnership at any law firm in the country.

    What are you doing still here?

  338. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    The point is, if he wants a certified copy of the original, the law says he – or anyone qualifying under §338-18 (b) (9) – can get one.

    You should probably sue, then, since Hawaii doesn’t share your interpretation of their laws.

  339. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    The petition clause has nothing to do with the standing requirement in Court…

    Duh…

    As to case law that addresses our argument, it was provided. As to a case that addresses your ‘argument’… Well, is that not your ‘job’? To find support for your claims?

  340. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    Thanks for trying to educate yguy…

  341. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    First of all, you’re quoting from a syllabus, which carries no legal weight.

    You’re right. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, the part of the decision summarized there was 5 pages long – pages 573-578 of the decision. I don’t think Dr. C. wants so much of the case copied over here.

    Kennedy’s concurrence gives a pretty good explanation of the Constitutional theory behind the concrete injury requirement:

    The Court’s holding that there is an outer limit to the power of Congress to confer rights of action is a direct and necessary consequence of the case and controversy limitations found in Article III. I agree that it would exceed those limitations if, at the behest of Congress and in the absence of any showing of concrete injury, we were to entertain citizen suits to vindicate the public’s nonconcrete interest in the proper administration of the laws. While it does not matter how many persons have been injured by the challenged action, the party bringing suit must show that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way. This requirement is not just an empty formality. It preserves the vitality of the adversarial process by assuring both that the parties before the court have an actual, as opposed to professed, stake in the outcome, and that “the legal questions presented . . . will be resolved, not in the rarefied atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). In addition, the requirement of concrete injury confines the Judicial Branch to its proper, limited role in the constitutional framework of government.

    An independent judiciary is held to account through its open proceedings and its reasoned judgments. In this process it is essential for the public to know what persons or groups are invoking the judicial power, the reasons thatthey have brought suit, and whether their claims are vindicated or denied. The concrete injury requirement helps assure that there can be an answer to these questions; and, as the Court’s opinion is careful to show, that is part of the constitutional design.

    It’s kind of funny that you disagree with Marbury v. Madison, which gave the Court the ability to review the actions of Congress, but you want the Court to be able to hear generalized complaints of a speculative and non-concrete nature.

  342. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    The petition clause has no relevance here.

    Duh…

    You have shown this quite aptly, I’d say

  343. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Greg:
    That you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    That would certainly make sense had I based my claim on any case law. Things being what they are, it’s clear the ignorance is entirely on your end.

    But, you know what, you’re right. Lectlaw was making that requirement of standing up. Or, the Supreme Court completely missed the meaning of the right to petition.

    That I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that you have yet to quote anything from any court ruling that even makes a pretense of reconciling that requirement with the petition clause.

  344. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Aside from the fact that you had to butcher that quote to make it say what you want, you have yet to square it with the petition clause.

    Please, you’re missing my much bigger mistake. I mistakenly quoted from the dissent in that case.

    The case itself said this:

    In the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences; it is a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community in this country. It is thus a form of political expression. Groups which find themselves unable to achieve their objectives through the ballot frequently turn to the courts. 12 Just as it was true of the opponents of New Deal legislation during the 1930’s, 13 for example, no less is it true of the Negro minority today. And under the conditions of modern government, litigation may well be the sole practicable avenue open to a minority to petition for redress of grievances.

    The problem for your case, yguy, is that this seems to be it for the Supreme Court’s use of the right to petition in the context of standing.

    You can’t arrest people for soliciting litigants when the litigation in question is of a political nature.

    As far as I can tell, no other case has compared the petition clause with standing.

    As I mentioned, if you can figure out a way around standing based on the petition clause you are wasting considerable talents here on this blog.

    It shouldn’t be hard, you’ll just have to rewrite the history of the petition clause so that it always comprehended court action. You might also have to rewrite the history of the cases and controversies clause, too. But that shouldn’t be too hard for a guy who knows so much about the law that he can divine its meaning without reference to a single case.

  345. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    That would certainly make sense had I based my claim on any case law

    I’m just curious to see if anyone else in the world has ever thought that the petition clause and standing needed to reconciled.

    Apparently not.

    You and you alone, in the history of this nation, know of this interpretation of the petition clause.

    Good for you!

    That, and $2.65 will get you an iced-coffee from Dunkin Donuts.

    It won’t get you standing.

  346. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    That I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that you have yet to quote anything from any court ruling that even makes a pretense of reconciling that requirement with the petition clause.

    That’s a real problem for you who argues that the petition clause is somehow relevant here.

    In other words, there is no support for your position, as you have already indicated.

    That’s quite a problem for you now isn’t it?

    Other than a foolish reference to the petition clause while ignoring the relevant parts of the Constitution you have nothing to show.

  347. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    It surely won’t..

  348. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Greg: Hawaii doesn’t share your interpretation of their laws.

    We have no way of knowing that, since there is no indication that anyone meeting any of the critieria in §338-18 (b) has made a request for the original.

  349. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    yguy

    What I do know is that you have yet to quote anything from any court ruling that even makes a pretense of reconciling that requirement with the petition clause.

    So let’s see if I can capture yguy’s ‘argument’.

    The Petition Clause overrides and other Constitutional requirements which guide the concept of judicial standing even though there is a specific section which outlines Article III courts.

    A more proper reading of the Constitution would recognize the petition clause in its proper format and recognize that it grants people the right to file a grievance, however beyond that it does not determine what should happen with said grievance.

    That’s where the concept of standing becomes relevant. Before a Court can allow a case to move forward the issue of standing needs to be resolved.
    For that, there needs to be a real controversy.
    Hence the requirements as outline in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife.

    Thus the question: Where can (1) be reconciled with the petition clause is a flawed question as it presume that standing follows from the petition clause.

    Hope this clarifies.

  350. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    We have no way of knowing that, since there is no indication that anyone meeting any of the critieria in §338-18 (b) has made a request for the original.

    We know they claim not to release the long form birth certificate anymore.

    Only the COLB available now

    Question: … Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

    Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

    The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

    Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

    “The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

    Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

    The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

    Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.

    So, apparently, this poor mom simply cannot get a long form for her third and fifth child because Hawaii is misinterpreting their own law.

    You should tell someone about that. Don’t forget to mention your qualifications as internet legal genius – no need for case law here!

  351. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Okubo has been a little short of 100% in accuracy in the past.

  352. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    One cannot petition a branch of government to redress a grievance that such branch has no authority to redress.

  353. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Greg:
    I’m just curious to see if anyone else in the world has ever thought that the petition clause and standing needed to reconciled.

    The precedent you cite only goes back to 1900, and it’s equivocal (he must generally aver an injury peculiar to himself…) at that.

    Apparently not.

    Your point being…?

  354. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    The precedent you cite only goes back to 1900

    It quotes back to 1809 (OWINGS V. NORWOOD’S LESSEE). It also quotes cases from 1827, 1850, 1859, 1861, 1875, 1890, 1892, and 1893.
    But, it’s case law, so of no moment.

    Your point being…?

    If it was the Founders’ intent that the petitions clause should trump the Cases and Controversies clause, why are you the first to notice this, 223 years after the Constitution was written?

  355. avatar
    nbC May 14, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Your point being…?

    That your ‘argument’ about the petition clause is somehow lacking in relevance so far?

  356. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Greg: So, apparently, this poor mom simply cannot get a long form for her third and fifth child because Hawaii is misinterpreting their own law.

    More likely she can’t get it because a long form was never generated originally for those children due to the transition to paperless, wherefore the DoH doesn’t have it to give. So no violation there. Obama’s original, OTOH, is on record according to the DoH.

  357. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    No court has yet accepted the arugment that the right to petition is a competing constitutional value that limits the restrictiveness of standing doctrine, although it was raised by amici in Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)

    Karl Coplan, Petition Clause Interests and Standing for Judicial Review of Administrative Lawmaking, 34 Admin & Reg. L. News 3 (2008-2009).

    The article argues that standing should be subjected to the same tests as other First Amendment restricting government actions (vindicates a substantial governmental interest and operates in the least restrictive manner).

    In the example the author gives, the denial of standing to some (those who are benefited by government regulation) as opposed to others (those burdened by regulations) is a viewpoint discriminatory practice.

    So, one lawyer has raised the petition clause as a bar to standing doctrine in the 223 year history of the nation. It was not successful.

    I look forward to reading a nuanced argument for why not allowing birthers access to the courts is viewpoint discriminatory, doesn’t vindicate a substantial governmental interest and does not do it in the least restrictive manner.

  358. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    Greg:
    It quotes back to 1809 (OWINGS V. NORWOOD’S LESSEE). It also quotes cases from 1827, 1850, 1859, 1861, 1875, 1890, 1892, and 1893.

    Yes, and I’m sure every one of them has direct bearing on the matter under discussion.

    But, it’s case law, so of no moment.

    That’s not why it’s of no moment. It’s of no moment because it doesn’t address my contention which you are so determined to find fault with.

    If it was the Founders’ intent that the petitions clause should trump the Cases and Controversies clause, why are you the first to notice this, 223 years after the Constitution was written?

    Seeing the question is based on a strawman, it merits no response.

  359. avatar
    nbC May 14, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    Seeing the question is based on a strawman, it merits no response.

    Does this mean that your strawman about the petition clause being relevant to the legal concept of standing merits no response?

    I understand that you are unwilling to defend this position.

  360. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    yguy, if no court in the history of the nation has accepted the Petitions Clause as modifying standing, how do the courts act as:

    the last line of defense in the perpetual war against tyranny of the majority

    If no court in the history of the nation has accepted the Petitions Clause as modifying standing, how is this statement true:

    Since federal law cannot be written so as to abridge the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, neither can any law be so construed by a court. This being the case, any citizen has standing under the Constitution to bring before a court a legitimate grievance, as which the failure of government agents with proper authority to verify the constitutional eligibility of one elected to federal office surely qualifies.

    If, as I’ve shown with citations to articles, that the history of the petition clause was to protect the right to send petitions to the legislature and only in the past 50 years was it extended to the courts, how do you square that history with this statement of incredulity:

    You think the petition clause was drafted to protect the right to write to congressmen?

    If no court in the history of the nation has held the petitions clause to be at all implicated in standing decisions, how is this statement remotely true:

    I said any rule defining standing is superseded by the petition clause whenever the two conflict.

    Also, if you did say the above, how is it a strawman to reword your statement as follows:

    Greg: If it was the Founders’ intent that the petitions clause should trump the Cases and Controversies clause…

    If no court in the history of the nation has considered the petitions clause to limit standing in any way, why do you expect that a court would have spent time putting the concrete injury requirement in terms of the petitions clause as you requested here:

    Cite a case that explains requirement (1) in light of the petition clause

    and here:

    That requirement (1) as cited from lectlaw can’t be justified under the petition clause.

    and here:

    What I do know is that you have yet to quote anything from any court ruling that even makes a pretense of reconciling that requirement with the petition clause.

    No court has ever reconciled standing with the petition clause because they have been considered unrelated doctrines.

    Now what?

  361. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Greg:
    So, one lawyer has raised the petition clause as a bar to standing doctrine in the 223 year history of the nation. It was not successful.

    I don’t know where you’re getting this. The article doesn’t show on google, and a quick scan of the opinion in Bennet betrays no consideration of the petition clause.

  362. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    it was raised by amici in Bennett v. Spear

    Definition of Amicus briefs

    Cited Article.

    It was the second link when I googled the title.

  363. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Greg: If, as I’ve shown with citations to articles, that the history of the petition clause was to protect the right to send petitions to the legislature and only in the past 50 years was it extended to the courts, how do you square that history with this statement of incredulity:

    There is nothing that needs squaring. That the precursor(s) to the petition clause were meant to apply to legislatures is rendered moot by the fact that the petition clause explicitly applies to government in general. Had the framers meant to allow Congress to legislate against the right to petition the other branches, they would surely have substituted “Congress” for “government”.

    If no court in the history of the nation has held the petitions clause to be at all implicated in standing decisions, how is this statement remotely true:

    That a proposition has never been tested in court says nothing of its truth value. Neither have you shown that the standing doctrine predates 1900.

    Also, if you did say the above, how is it a strawman to reword your statement as follows:

    Because it is yet to be demonstrated that the standing doctrine necessarily follows from anything in A3S2C1.

    No court has ever reconciled standing with the petition clause because they have been considered unrelated doctrines.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between a doctrine and a constitutional provision.

  364. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    That a proposition has never been tested in court says nothing of its truth value. Neither have you shown that the standing doctrine predates 1900.

    So in other words, your ‘proposition’ remains untested and thus its truth value depends on your arguments.

    So far, I’d have to reject your claim, mostly because of your unwillingness to further support it with reason.

  365. avatar
    JoZeppy May 14, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    yguy: And I can: Obama’s refusal to release the original, after releasing the purported COLB.

    So in your book, Obama is guilty, until he proves his innocence, even after he has already proven it under the law, because he didn’t prove it the way you wanted it proven?

    Sorry, that’s not how the law works, nor how prima facie evidence works. The document provided is all he has to show under the law to prove he was born in Hawai’i. Get it through your head, Prima Facie evidence means that it is sufficient on its own to prove what it claims to represent. You have to show that the document itself is unreliable for some reason. The fact that there may be additional evidence to support his claim is immaterial. The fact that he refuses to produce any of this additional evidence doesn’t change the change the character of the COLB as prima facie evidence, and suffient evidence to prove a claim. That’s why it’s called prima facie evidence. To eliminate the need to provide for duplicative documentation. The only way to require additional evidence is to provide admissable evidence that the document is unreliable, and even then, the trier of fact balances the evidence to determine which is evidence is more reliable. You have not provided a shred of admissable evidence as to the unreliablity of the document. Therefore, there is no reason under the law to look at any other documents.

  366. avatar
    G May 14, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    There is no reason or anything that yguy can back up his personal “unique” understanding of law in his own mind. It is nothing but the same old, same old “proud ignorance” we see here time and time again of people who try to come off authoritative on stuff they have no idea what they are talking about.

    yguy’s entire “legal background” probably consists of watching episodes of Judge Judy and Law & Order.

  367. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    Yguy, you want to have it every which way but Sunday. You want it to be an originalist argument – that the founders intended the petition clause to allow generalized standing when the history is clear that when the Founders talked about petitions it was something that was heard by the legislature. And, of course, you want to ignore all the originalist statements about its meaning. You want it to be the Founders intent, despite the fact that it is obvious from the history that no one even considered the possibility of applying it to courts until the 50s.

    Let me play along for a second.

    1. It’s a First Amendment right. None of the 1st A rights are absolute. Shouting fire. Religious use of peyote, etc. Are there limits to the petition right? I can seek redress for any generalized wrong? Can I seek redress for YOUR wrong? A wrong that has nothing to do with me?

    2. What do you think happens when you petition Congress? They get your petition, they read it, and then they round file it. Standing doesn’t forbid you from filing your case. You can file it, the court will tell you that you can’t bring generalized claims and round-file the case. What words in the petition clause give you the right to prosecute your claim to fruition? Have they been doing it completely wrong in Congress? If so, isn’t the right to speech similarly phrased? Shouldn’t it include within it the right to force people to listen to you?

  368. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Sorry, that’s not how the law works, nor how prima facie evidence works.The document provided is all he has to show under the law to prove he was born in Hawai’i.

    This, of course, is nonsense. If any piece of evidence is sufficient to prove something, it is no longer prima facie evidence, but conclusive evidence; and since it is self-evident that the probative value of any evidence is inversely proportional to the probability that conflicting evidence exists, it’s clear that the closest we’ll ever get to proving HI is his birthplace is to inspect the original documentation.

  369. avatar
    nbc May 14, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    it’s clear that the closest we’ll ever get to proving HI is his birthplace is to inspect the original documentation.

    Why? it will also show Hawaii as his state of birth?

    Def: Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

    Do you believe it has been ‘rebutted’? In any legal sense?

  370. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    Let’s pretend, for a second, that the petition clause of the first amendment limits standing. Some questions:

    1. It’s a First Amendment right. None of the 1st A rights are absolute. Shouting fire. Religious use of peyote, etc. Are there limits to the petition right? I can seek redress for any generalized wrong? Can I seek redress for YOUR wrong? A wrong that has nothing to do with me? Clearly, petitions have not historically been limited to things of personal interest to the petitioner. So, do you mind if I litigate all your interests? I promise I’ll do a good job – plus, if I lose, it’s only you who is bound by the decision, so what do I care?

    2. What do you think happens when you petition Congress? They get your petition, they read it, and then they round file it. Standing doesn’t forbid you from filing your case. You can file it, the court will tell you that you can’t bring generalized claims and round-file the case. What words in the petition clause give you the right to prosecute your claim to fruition? Have they been doing it completely wrong in Congress? If so, isn’t the right to speech similarly phrased? Shouldn’t it include within it the right to force people to listen to you?

    3. The standard test for the abridgment of first amendment rights is whether it implicates a significant governmental interest and whether the method is the least restrictive method. Standing implicates the ability of courts to marshal their scarce resources. Is that not a significant judicial interest? As I noted above, there was a debate about it in the Constitutional Convention with James Madison arguing, successfully that the judiciary should limit itself to matters of a judicial nature. The interest is enshrined in the Constitution. If it’s a significant interest, can you think of a less restrictive method of attaining it?

  371. avatar
    JoZeppy May 14, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    Sw

    yguy: This, of course, is nonsense. If any piece of evidence is sufficient to prove something, it is no longer prima facie evidence, but conclusive evidence; and since it is self-evident that the probative value of any evidence is inversely proportional to the probability that conflicting evidence exists, it’s clear that the closest we’ll ever get to proving HI is his birthplace is to inspect the original documentation.

    Sweet Christ on a cracker. In the absence of admissable evidence to the contrary, prima facie evidence is conclusive. The fact that it is prima facie evidence means it shifts the burden to the opposing side to counter that evidence. In the presence of the COLB, there is no need to examine the original document unless you provide evidence as to why the document should not be relied on.

    Unless you can provide rebuttal evidence, the COLB is legally sufficient to prove his birth in Hawaii.

  372. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 6:56 pm #

    Nowadays, hospital electronic medical records systems transmit births to jurisdiction, and the Intrajuridsictional Exchange (IJE) is used to electronically transmit vital events between states: “State to state, no papers.”

  373. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

    I am forced to agree with you on this point. It might take a lawsuit, but I think that the law is clear that President Obama could get a copy of anything they have. Law trumps policy.

  374. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    Greg: Yguy, you want to have it every which way but Sunday. You want it to be an originalist argument – that the founders intended the petition clause to allow generalized standing when the history is clear that when the Founders talked about petitions it was something that was heard by the legislature.

    What they said about petitions in a general sense is irrelevant. What matters is how it was meant in the context of 1A

    And, of course, you want to ignore all the originalist statements about its meaning.

    Such as…?

    Let me play along for a second.1. It’s a First Amendment right. None of the 1st A rights are absolute.

    Actually they are, if they’re used responsibly.

    Shouting fire. Religious use of peyote, etc. Are there limits to the petition right? I can seek redress for any generalized wrong? Can I seek redress for YOUR wrong? A wrong that has nothing to do with me?

    A standing violation of a constitutional provision is not such a wrong.

    Have they been doing it completely wrong in Congress? If so, isn’t the right to speech similarly phrased? Shouldn’t it include within it the right to force people to listen to you?

    False parallel. There are many people who are not in the employ of any random US citizen. There is no one in the US government who is not.

  375. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    JoZeppy: Sw
    Sweet Christ on a cracker.In the absence of admissable evidence to the contrary, prima facie evidence is conclusive.

    No, it isn’t. You don’t prove something by refusing, on any pretext, to look at potentially contradictory evidence. So to say the law forbids the original from being admitted as evidence is to say the law forbids the question from ever being resolved in court, except to the satisfaction of those who don’t want to know anyway.

  376. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    There is no “potentially contradictory evidence”. Again the burden of proof lays with the accuser. Until Taitz and crew can prove that the COLB cannot be relied upon with actual hard evidence, the COLB is conclusive proof. The law doesn’t work off of hypotheticals and absence of proof.

  377. avatar
    JoZeppy May 14, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    yguy: No, it isn’t. You don’t prove something by refusing, on any pretext, to look at potentially contradictory evidence. So to say the law forbids the original from being admitted as evidence is to say the law forbids the question from ever being resolved in court, except to the satisfaction of those who don’t want to know anyway.

    again…do you not understand the meaning of prima facie evidence? Unless you provide some rebuttal evidence, he as proven his case. End of story. A party does not have to provide every possible piece of evidence that exists to prove a fact, especially when the side contesting the fact has yet to produce a single shred of admissible evidence.

    And I never said the law forbids the original from being admitted as evidence. It certainly can be admitted. There is just no need for it. I said that the COLB, absent any rebuttal evidence, is all the he needs to produce to prove he is born in Hawaii. Prima facie means that on its face it alone is sufficient to prove what it claims, absent rebuttal evidence as to why it should not be relied on. The burden is on you as to why it cannot be relied on. The burden is not on the person offering the prima facie evidence to show there is no contraditory evidence…otherwise, it wouldn’t be prima facie evidence.

  378. avatar
    yguy May 14, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    again…do you not understand the meaning of prima facie evidence?

    Yes, I do. You obviously don’t.

    Unless you provide some rebuttal evidence, he as proven his case.

    No, he has not proven his case unless he has shown his contention to be true. To say otherwise is to say one can prove a case using fraudulent prima facie evidence.

  379. avatar
    Bob Ross May 14, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    yguy:
    Yes, I do. You obviously don’t.
    No, he has not proven his case unless he has shown his contention to be true. To say otherwise is to say one can prove a case using fraudulent prima facie evidence.

    He has shown his contention to be true. That’s why he’s president. Congress signed off on it, the supreme court signed off on it. It’s done and over with. There is nothing fraudulent about the COLB. Until you show prima facie evidence to contradict the COLB you have no case.

  380. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    A standing violation of a constitutional provision is not such a wrong.

    The First Amendment doesn’t say “a standing violation of a constitutional provision,” does it?

    to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    You wanted to find out, exactly where in the cases and controversies clause one finds the requirement for concrete injury. I’d like you to point out, exactly, where in the First Amendment you find a limitation to standing violations of the Constitution.

    Please demonstrate that a limitation to standing violations of the Constitution necessarily follows from anything in the First Amendment.

  381. avatar
    Greg May 14, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    No immunity?

    “Obedience to an order is a complete defense unless the order was illegal and the accused actually knew it was illegal or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know the order was illegal.”

    I copied that from the Military Judges’ Benchbook.

    No crime can be charged if an order looked legal to the soldier and the soldier did not actually know that the order was unlawful or reasonably should have known.

    Here’s part of the jury instruction for the obedience to an unlawful order defense:

    If you find that the accused was acting under order(s) you must next decide whether the accused knew the order(s) to be illegal. You must resolve this issue by looking at the situation subjectively, through the eyes of the accused. You should consider the accused’s (age) (education) (training) (rank) (background) (experience) (___________). If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually knew the order(s) to be illegal, then the defense of obedience to orders does not exist.

    If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually knew the order(s) to be unlawful, you must then determine whether, under the same circumstances as are present in this case, a
    person of ordinary common sense would have known that the order(s) (was) (were) unlawful. In resolving this issue, you should consider (summarize evidence and contentions of parties concerning whether the orders was/were issued, and its/their terms, as appropriate). If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a person of ordinary
    common sense would have known that the order was unlawful, the defense of obedience to orders does not exist, even if the accused did not in fact know that the order was unlawful.

  382. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    yguy: fraudulent prima facie evidence

    I’m sorry. I missed the part where you presented evidence to show that the COLB was fraudulent. Let’s forget the words “prima facie” for just a moment and just stick with “evidence.” Evidence always trumps no evidence.

  383. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    yguy: No, he has not proven his case unless he has shown his contention to be true. To say otherwise is to say one can prove a case using fraudulent prima facie evidence.

    Again yguy shows total unfamiliarity with the concept of prima facie evidence. While he calls it ‘fraudulent’ it is prima facie legal evidence and meets the FRE for self authenticating documents. Combined with the statements by the Hawaiian officials, there is an excellent prima facie case.

    If yguy wants to overcome the prima facie nature of the case he has to show that his claim of ‘fraudulent’ has any foundation in fact or that there exists evidence which is sufficient to overcome, the prima facie status of the COLB.

    He can’t and he won’t.

    Typical and predictable… Just like he is unable to defend his position about the ‘petition clause’ and standing…

    Educational at best to those who want to avoid going down a foolish path of ignorance, causing one to become enslaved.

  384. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    yguy: Did any of them see his original birth certificate?

    Many must have seen the equivalent document called a COLB which shows President Obama born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen.

  385. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 1:33 am #

    yguy: Because respect for the Constitution among jurists has been increasingly subverted by reliance on case law, and because nobody wants to face the repercussions of Obama being exposed as ineligible.

    What does that even mean? Case law is based upon the constitution itself. It is the supreme court’s interpretation of what our laws say. Good lord you have no case at all.

  386. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    Romans 1:22…

  387. avatar
    Mike May 15, 2010 at 8:46 am #

    You do understand that the right to remain silent is something which applies in legal proceedings and has no relevance to being interviewed on the telly? Lakin and his hack lawyer were not being compelled by a state agency to be there or answer questions which placed him in any jeopardy; consequently, your invocation of the right to remain silent is a mere rhetorical device aimed at deflecting attention from the fact that Lakin is a puppet for the birfoon movement.

  388. avatar
    Mike May 15, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    Bob FTW for FG reference πŸ˜€

  389. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m sorry. I missed the part where you presented evidence to show that the COLB was fraudulent.

    I never said it was.

    Let’s forget the words “prima facie” for just a moment and just stick with “evidence.” Evidence always trumps no evidence.

    You’re on trial for murder, and 5 people claim to have seen you do it. Your attorney wants to put on the stand a witness who can testify that you were elsewhere at the time, but the judge says it’s not needed because the 5 witnesses have given prima facie evidence. How is that essentially different from admitting a COLB – which is testimony from present day HI officials – into evidence and excluding the original documentation, which is testimony from HI officials from 1961?

  390. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    yguy:
    I never said it was.
    You’re on trial for murder, and 5 people claim to have seen you do it. Your attorney wants to put on the stand a witness who can testify that you were elsewhere at the time, but the judge says it’s not needed because the 5 witnesses have given prima facie evidence. How is that essentially different from admitting a COLB – which is testimony from present day HI officials – into evidence and excluding the original documentation, which is testimony from HI officials from 1961?

    Bad analogy crazy pants. The lawyers present a list of witnesses to the judge and an idea of what they are there for. The COLB is a government document that serves as prima facie. It contains information that is already in the long form. The long form would not contain a different birth state or city. Again you have a bad misconception of what prima facie means.

  391. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 11:43 am #

    Greg:
    The First Amendment doesn’t say “a standing violation of a constitutional provision,” does it?

    Damn, it’s tough to slip anything by you.

    Please demonstrate that a limitation to standing violations of the Constitution necessarily follows from anything in the First Amendment.

    I never said it did, obviously. I merely pointed out that as an American citizen, there is no such thing as a constitutional violation that “has nothing to do with me”.

  392. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    Bob Ross:
    Bad analogy crazy pants.

    Only for people who think the testimony of government officials is beyond question.

  393. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Only for people who think the testimony of government officials is beyond question.

    Again missing the point…

    COLB shows Obama born on US soil. The testimony of government officials explain that the information on the COLB is accurate.

    You have a foolish tendency to reject anything as potentially fraudulent… Even when the facts are quite clear…
    That’s not skepticism anymore…

  394. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    I’m sorry. I missed the part where you presented evidence to show that the COLB was fraudulent.

    I never said it was.

    Chicken words

  395. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    . How is that essentially different from admitting a COLB – which is testimony from present day HI officials – into evidence and excluding the original documentation, which is testimony from HI officials from 1961?

    If you cannot see why it’s different then I believe we have found the source of your confusion.

    Prima facie evidence can be overcome by contrary evidence.

    In this case, you have the prima facie evidence of the COLB and the testimony of the responsible Hawaiian officials. It is now up to you that this evidence can be overcome by other legal evidence.

    Surely you must realize how confusing your ‘example’ was?
    You insist that given prima facie evidence, more prima facie evidence is needed…

  396. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    I never said it did, obviously. I merely pointed out that as an American citizen, there is no such thing as a constitutional violation that “has nothing to do with me”.

    Hilarious, the back pedaling is fascinating to watch….
    Even a superficial understanding of the concept of standing and how it relates to Constitutional provisions would have cured yguy from his foolish assertions about the petition clause.
    Now he has to pretend he did not make these foolish claims..

  397. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    Actually they are, if they’re used responsibly.

    That’s what Greg said, none of the 1st Amendment rights are absolute…
    Geez….

    A standing violation of a constitutional provision is not such a wrong.

    Obviously your ‘argument’ which is merely an assertion runs counter to the facts. The question is: When the Constitution assigns a particular action or task to Congress, can the Courts rule against Congress? Logic, reason and the separation of powers all argue against it.
    In other words, the assertion of a violation of a Constitutional provision in such an instance may not be justiciable through the Courts.
    There are good reasons for that and our Founders and Congresspersons all understood that the alternative was far too disastrous to our political system. Allowing for instance the office of the President to be challenged after election would result in chaos.

  398. avatar
    Mike May 15, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    I think we have a solution to the yguy issue. Everyone start posting lolcats – he may be able to understand them.

  399. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    yguy:
    Only for people who think the testimony of government officials is beyond question.

    When compared to statements from you yeah they have more credibility. You have government documents and statements by government officials compared to wild conspiracy theories. I think I’ll take the word of government officials

  400. avatar
    Walter White May 15, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    yguy:
    I never said it was.
    You’re on trial for murder, and 5 people claim to have seen you do it. Your attorney wants to put on the stand a witness who can testify that you were elsewhere at the time, but the judge says it’s not needed because the 5 witnesses have given prima facie evidence. How is that essentially different from admitting a COLB – which is testimony from present day HI officials – into evidence and excluding the original documentation, which is testimony from HI officials from 1961?

    BO’s original 1961 birth record includes the attestation of his mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator. But, we can’t see it because it will lead to the conclusion the Soetoro adoption was annulled and a Hawaii District Court Judge ordered the data found on the COLB to be “filed” with the HI DoH.

    Does any of this information make BO ineligible for POTUS?

    No.

    The Justice Department has denied BO was ever Barry Soetoro. If he was never Barry Soetoro, then he was never an Indonesian National.

    If the eligibility challengers can get the Court filings unsealed on the Soetoro adoption, then it will lead to conclusive evidence Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian National. If was an Indonesian National, then how can he be a Natural-born American citizen?

  401. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    I see a lot of comments on this thread about getting the “original” birth certificate into court.

    I think the piece that is missing is the fact that the original on file with the Department of Health would NEVER be taken to court — if the paper original still exists, then the DOH would be required to maintain possession of it.

    In response to a subpena, they could send the custodian of records to personally testify in court, and they could even produced a photocopy of he original and certify that — but the actual paper original… nada.

    The job of a vital records department is to KEEP the original paperwork and never let it out of their custody… so that they don’t LOSE it. The whole purpose of a system for certifying copies is to create a mechanism to verify the existence and contents of the documents without releasing the filed, never-to-be-let-go paperwork.

  402. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 15, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    yguy: You’re on trial for murder, and 5 people claim to have seen you do it. Your attorney wants to put on the stand a witness who can testify that you were elsewhere at the time, but the judge says it’s not needed because the 5 witnesses have given prima facie evidence. How is that essentially different from admitting a COLB – which is testimony from present day HI officials – into evidence and excluding the original documentation, which is testimony from HI officials from 1961?

    In your analogy, they don’t *exclude* the prima facie evidence of the first 5 witnesses — they simply allow your attorney to present your witness. The jury can decide whether they believe the 5 prosecution witnesses… or whether they believe 1 witness.

    IF there was a court case for which the fact of the President’s birth was at issue (not true in the Lakin case) — and the COLB was produced to establish prima facie evidence of the President’s birth — the opposing side could introduce whatever admissible evidence they had in an effort to rebut the information in the COLB, but that wouldn’t result in excluding the COLB from evidence. Obviously, what they introduced would need to be a better or more reliable sort of evidence — and one that contained contradictory information.

  403. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    David Eisenhower. Spyros Auknioy/Anagnostopoulos.

  404. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Walter White: If the eligibility challengers can get the Court filings unsealed on the Soetoro adoption, then it will lead to conclusive evidence Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian National. If was an Indonesian National, then how can he be a Natural-born American citizen?

    David Eisenhower. Spyros Anagnostopoulos.

  405. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 15, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    “I welcome their opinion with regard to the law.”

    The beauty of this is that you are wrong, and Lakin will be found guilty of what he’s charged with, and there is nothing you can do or say that will change that.

  406. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    Do you even have

    Walter White:
    BO’s original 1961 birth record includes the attestation of his mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator. But, we can’t see it because it will lead to the conclusion the Soetoro adoption was annulled and a Hawaii District Court Judge ordered the data found on the COLB to be “filed” with the HI DoH.Does any of this information make BO ineligible for POTUS?No.The Justice Department has denied BO was ever Barry Soetoro. If he was never Barry Soetoro, then he was never an Indonesian National.If the eligibility challengers can get the Court filings unsealed on the Soetoro adoption, then it will lead to conclusive evidence Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian National. If was an Indonesian National, then how can he be a Natural-born American citizen?

    Do you have any actual proof that Obama was ever adopted by Soetoro? How about proof that he legally changed his name to “Barry Soetoro”

  407. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    My prediction is that rather than press forward in an attempt to bring the facts to light, Lakin and his defense team will draw things out as long as possible.

  408. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    Walter White: BO’s original 1961 birth record includes the attestation of his mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator.

    No hospital administrator as such signs a birth certificate in Hawaii. I suppose the local registrar MIGHT also be the hospital administrator, but that’s not known.

  409. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    yguy:

    You’re on trial for murder, and 5 people claim to have seen you do it. Your attorney wants to put on the stand a witness who can testify that you were elsewhere at the time, but the judge says it’s not needed because the 5 witnesses have given prima facie evidence. How is that essentially different from admitting a COLB – which is testimony from present day HI officials – into evidence and excluding the original documentation, which is testimony from HI officials from 1961?

    Your analogy breaks down precisely because you have no witness for your side. The judge isn’t refusing to let your witness testify; your witness didn’t show up! As I said before “evidence trumps no evidence.”

  410. avatar
    nbc May 15, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Trial counsel may want to subpoena anything, but in the end they will get nothing. At best they will get the birth certificate COLB which shows President Obama to be born on US soil.

    Nothing else matters, not his presumed Indonesian citizenship for which no evidence exists, nor his Kenyan or British statutory citizenship.

    When the COLB shows that President Obama is born on US soil, Lakin will be doomed.

    Of course, it may never get this far as the judge may rule that the order was indeed a legal order and that the issue of eligibility is irrelevant and a political question.

    Lakin is doomed.

    There is just no good way out. Even if the president were shown to be ineligible, Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying legal orders and missing a troop movement.

    Lakin is doomed.

  411. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    In your analogy, they don’t *exclude* the prima facie evidence of the first 5 witnesses — they simply allow your attorney to present your witness.

    No, they don’t. If you don’t like my analogy the way it is, make your own. Don’t bugger up mine to make it suit your purposes.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Your analogy breaks down precisely because you have no witness for your side. The judge isn’t refusing to let your witness testify; your witness didn’t show up!

    Again, my analogy says the witness is available but the judge won’t let him testify. Obviously that’s improper, just as it would be to subpoena the COLB and not the original.

  412. avatar
    Walter White May 15, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    nbc: Trial counsel may want to subpoena anything, but in the end they will get nothing. At best they will get the birth certificate COLB which shows President Obama to be born on US soil.Nothing else matters, not his presumed Indonesian citizenship for which no evidence exists, nor his Kenyan or British statutory citizenship.When the COLB shows that President Obama is born on US soil, Lakin will be doomed.Of course, it may never get this far as the judge may rule that the order was indeed a legal order and that the issue of eligibility is irrelevant and a political question.Lakin is doomed.There is just no good way out. Even if the president were shown to be ineligible, Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying legal orders and missing a troop movement.Lakin is doomed.

    Federal judge delays US piracy trial for 6 Somalis

    NORFOLK, Va. — A federal judge has postponed the U.S. trial of six Somali nationals charged with piracy off the coast of Africa to give both sides more time to prepare.

    ————————————————–

    The online image of Obama’s COLB is “inconclusive” according to attorney Jensen.

    Once a certified copy of Obama’s COLB is shown it will be identified as amended. The amendment opens the door for Jensen to unseal the Soetoro adoption records which leads to Barry Soetoro, Indonesian National.

    Watch a replay on Jensen on AC360. You could tell he was ready to shout the truth out, but he held back and kept trying to explain to Cooper the COLB was “inconclusive.”

  413. avatar
    Black Lion May 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    Sven still speculates…

    “But, we can’t see it because it will lead to the conclusion the Soetoro adoption was annulled and a Hawaii District Court Judge ordered the data found on the COLB to be “filed” with the HI DoH.”

    Please provide us with the evidence that there was an adoption by Soetero? OK, no evidence? How about evidence that there was ever a hearing regarding this issue where some mythical judge ordered anything…? None? So basically you just have your imagination, running away with you, thinking that such events occured. OK, how about something simple. Admissible evidence that Barack Obama ever went by the name Barry Soetero in the United States? None?

    So lets recap. You feel that the birth records will show that a adoption happened, even though you have no evidence that such an event ever happened….

    You should be at convict Manning’s pretend trial…Because you have a pretend theory and pretend evidence so you would fit right in…

  414. avatar
    Randy May 15, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    Mindreader much?

  415. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Again, my analogy says the witness is available but the judge won’t let him testify. Obviously that’s improper, just as it would be to subpoena the COLB and not the original.

    The problem is that the original would merely confirm the COLB and thus is not, as in your example, evidence that rebuts the prima facie evidence.

    Thanks for trying but remember that the prima facie evidence needs to be overcome by the plaintiff. Asking for more prima facie evidence is not going to be helpful here.

    Sorry but once again your ‘logic’ fails to hold.

  416. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Once a certified copy of Obama’s COLB is shown it will be identified as amended. The amendment opens the door for Jensen to unseal the Soetoro adoption records which leads to Barry Soetoro, Indonesian National.

    A certified copy already has been provided and shows no evidence of an amendment.

    Note that even under the best circumstances, if the COLB were to show that President Obama had been adopted, this does not undermine President Obama’s natural born status.
    The courts have been quite clear on this matter.

    Doomed….

    What Lakin is hoping for is much simpler, that the COLB or ‘birth certificate’ would show Obama born in Kenya. That is almost as foolish as your argument.
    But unlike your argument, it would at least mean that President Obama would not have been born on US soil.

    So let me repeat this: Obama’s Indonesian citizenship status has no relevance to his natural born status.

    Simple…

  417. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    Walter (Sven) White: The online image of Obama’s COLB is “inconclusive” according to attorney Jensen.

    That’s OK. The online image of attorney Jensen looks pretty inconclusive to me.

  418. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    yguy: Again, my analogy says the witness is available but the judge won’t let him testify. Obviously that’s improper, just as it would be to subpoena the COLB and not the original.

    Since your analogy neither reflects an accurate concept of prima facie evidence, nor anything relating to real evidence against Obama, your analogy is not an analogy but an irrelevancy.

  419. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Since your analogy neither reflects an accurate concept of prima facie evidence,

    Eyewitness testimony isn’t prima facie evidence?

    nor anything relating to real evidence against Obama

    The original may or may not be real evidence against Obama’s eligibility. We’ll never know unless it is produced in open court, any more than we would know if the witness for the defense could provide an alibi if he were kept in a dungeon to make sure he didn’t testify.

  420. avatar
    misha May 15, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    “The online image of Obama’s COLB is “inconclusive” according to attorney Jensen.”

    Jensen fancies himself another Perry Mason. (snicker)

  421. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    yguy:
    Eyewitness testimony isn’t prima facie evidence?
    The original may or may not be real evidence against Obama’s eligibility. We’ll never know unless it is produced in open court, any more than we would know if the witness for the defense could provide an alibi if he were kept in a dungeon to make sure he didn’t testify.

    The long form wouldn’t present anything contradictory. You’re working off a bad assumption that there is contradictory evidence different from the government issued COLB. Once again your analogy is bad. The judge would know beforehand that there is contradicting information because when the lawyers submit the witness list they pretty much know which side they’re on.

    Your insistence on the other hand is based on a bad assumption that there is contradictory information in the long form when you have not been informed of such nor have proof of such.

  422. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    yguy: Eyewitness testimony isn’t prima facie evidence?

    Have we achieved a breakthrough? Of course eyewitness testimony is not prima facie evidence.

  423. avatar
    nbC May 15, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    The original may or may not be real evidence against Obama’s eligibility. We’ll never know unless it is produced in open court, any more than we would know if the witness for the defense could provide an alibi if he were kept in a dungeon to make sure he didn’t testify.

    So you have no way to overcome the prima facie nature of the COLB but you hope that the full record will somehow show something?

    Since the location of birth is the only relevant data point, the COLB shows exactly the same relevant data as the long form.

    Sorry but you do not appear to understand these legal concepts.

    Even if you were to doubt the COLB, you may at best get the testimony of a DOH official to certify the accuracy.

  424. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    nbC:
    So you have no way to overcome the prima facie nature of the COLB but you hope that the full record will somehow show something?Since the location of birth is the only relevant data point, the COLB shows exactly the same relevant data as the long form.Sorry but you do not appear to understand these legal concepts.Even if you were to doubt the COLB, you may at best get the testimony of a DOH official to certify the accuracy.

    Its guilty until proven guilty with these birthers

  425. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    Bob Ross:
    The long form wouldn’t present anything contradictory.You’re working off a bad assumption that there is contradictory evidence different from the government issued COLB.

    No, you are working off a bad assumption that there is NO contradictory evidence. The COLB and the original represent the testimonies of two different sets of witnesses, and here you are insisting, in essence, that they cannot possibly contradict one another, which is patent insanity.

  426. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 15, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    No, you are working off a bad assumption that there is NO contradictory evidence.

    What exact evidence is admissible that’s against it?

    You have a tape where the grandmother says multiple times that Obama was born in Hawaii. Despite being Hearsay, this is not evidence against it.

    You have several birth certificates that would not be admitted in a court of law, because they have not been authenticated by the Kenyan Government, and some of them are admitted forgeries to “Punk” the Birthers. Others are “found” by people breaking the law, who have a history of forging documents and laying the ground work.

    You have the insane ramblings of people who obviously do not know the law, who insist that Obama voluntarily gave up his U.S. Citizenship at the ripe old age of 6, but refuse to show a case since 1933 where a minor of 6 has successfully given it up. There is also no evidence cooberating this.

    Then you have a bunch of statements that are taken out of context from the Kenyan Assembly, though there’s evidence that your interpretation of them is not what they mean.

    The reason we say that there is no evidence against this, is because we have yet to be presented with any admissible evidence against this. If you come back with some, we may revise our statement, but right now, our statement is the truth.

  427. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    dunstvangeet: No, you are working off a bad assumption that there is NO contradictory evidence.What exact evidence is admissible that’s against it?

    I haven’t said there IS evidence against it. I have merely noted that the original is potentially contradictory evidence.

  428. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    yguy:
    No, you are working off a bad assumption that there is NO contradictory evidence. The COLB and the original represent the testimonies of two different sets of witnesses, and here you are insisting, in essence, that they cannot possibly contradict one another, which is patent insanity.

    Its not a bad assumption when you have no proof of contradictory evidence. As has been explained to you evidence doesn’t work that way. This is like saying the Russians have some secret awesome nuke and because we can’t find proof that it exists then it must exist. There’s no logic with what you’re saying. No the COLB and Long form do not represent two different witnesses as the COLB contains information from the long form. Thus in your scenario the COLB and long form are the same “witness”.

    Patent insanity is believing something without any proof which is what you’re doing.

  429. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Have we achieved a breakthrough? Of course eyewitness testimony is not prima facie evidence.

    From lectlaw:

    PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE

    Latin for “at first view.”

    Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

    Perhaps you’d care to explain why the testimony of 5 eyewitnesses doesn’t constitute evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of fact unless rebutted.

  430. avatar
    yguy May 15, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    Bob Ross:
    Its not a bad assumption when you have no proof of contradictory evidence.

    Yes, it is. When you’ve gotten that through your head, get back to me. Until then, have a nice life.

  431. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    yguy:
    I haven’t said there IS evidence against it. I have merely noted that the original is potentially contradictory evidence.

    Sure and you’re potentially a serial killer

  432. avatar
    Bob Ross May 15, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    yguy:
    From lectlaw:
    Perhaps you’d care to explain why the testimony of 5 eyewitnesses doesn’t constitute evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of fact unless rebutted.

    Eye witness testimony is no longer considered reliable in a court of law.

  433. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    yguy: Perhaps you’d care to explain why the testimony of 5 eyewitnesses doesn’t constitute evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of fact unless rebutted.

    At least I got you to look something up. Your 5 eyewitnesses might be sufficient, or they might not be sufficient to make the case. It depends on the particulars of who they were and what they said.

    The COLB is, on the other hand, prima facie evidence by statute. It’s rather like when the State says that a blood alcohol content over a particular level is prima facie evidence that someone is intoxicated.

    But I still don’t understand your analogy. If your 5 witnesses were an analogy to the COLB and I agreed to the assumption that the 5 witnesses were sufficient to establish the fact in question, no one has said that either is immune from rebuttal. I am simply saying that you have no rebuttal in the case of the COLB. It’s not that a judge is refusing to let you present evidence, it is that you don’t have any evidence.

    I guess you are saying that if the COLB were presented, that the other side would be entitled to subpoena a copy of the hospital certificate. That might happen, but since the COLB is a certified copy of the other, there is no way the other could differ. And add to that the State of Hawaii has an official government web site saying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. It’s sort of moot.

    To complete your legal education, you might look up some old Perry Mason episodes and look for the phrase “fishing expedition.”

  434. avatar
    Bob Ross May 16, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    yguy:
    Yes, it is. When you’ve gotten that through your head, get back to me. Until then, have a nice life.

    No its not. You have presented no contradictory evidence. Again you’re working off an assumption of guilty until innocent but with you birthers its always guilty until guilty because no amount of proof will deter you away from wild conspiracy theories

  435. avatar
    G May 16, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    Good grief! Does anyone else feel like they are caught in the middle of a weird birther version of the famous “Who’s on First” routine?

  436. avatar
    Scientist May 16, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The COLB is, on the other hand, prima facie evidence by statute. It’s rather like when the State says that a blood alcohol content over a particular level is prima facie evidence that someone is intoxicated.

    Exactly! And even the great defender of drunk drivers, the Apuzzo himself in his real law practice, wouldn’t come into court and attempt to show that his client was perfectly capable of driving despite a blood alcohol of 0.15. He would focus on calibration of the breathalyzer and procedural errors by the cops, because, while he seems unaware of citizenship laws, even he knows that attempting to overcome the statutory definition of impaired driving is a sure loser.

  437. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 16, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    Scientist: And even the great defender of drunk drivers, the Apuzzo himself in his real law practice, wouldn’t come into court and attempt to show that his client was perfectly capable of driving despite a blood alcohol of 0.15.

    I was once on a DUI jury where the defendant was far over the limit. However his defense consisted primarily of the video tape from the police station that showed him to be able to stand up without falling over.

    Guilty.

  438. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I guess you are saying that if the COLB were presented, that the other side would be entitled to subpoena a copy of the hospital certificate. That might happen, but since the COLB is a certified copy of the other, there is no way the other could differ.

    There’s your problem: you make the assumption that the COLB is the result of lawful acts – which is unwarranted in light of Obama’s opacity in this matter, to say nothing of the questionable signals being sent by the DoH.

    To complete your legal education, you might look up some old Perry Mason episodes and look for the phrase “fishing expedition.”

    Those were all criminal proceedings. A request for the original BC is no more a fishing expedition than is the request from a highway patrolman for a driver’s license.

  439. avatar
    Scientist May 16, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    yguy: A request for the original BC is no more a fishing expedition than is the request from a highway patrolman for a driver’s license.

    The COLB IS the driver’s license. The cop has run the license through the DMV and it checks out; i.e. it has been verified by state officials. Now he wants to see the written exam and the report of the road test. Not gonna happen-the cop is out of line and will be disciplined by his superiors.

    This is you, arguing for the sake of arguing. Watch it and learn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

  440. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    Expelliarmus: I think the piece that is missing is the fact that the original on file with the Department of Health would NEVER be taken to court — if the paper original still exists, then the DOH would be required to maintain possession of it.

    HI law allows physical inspection by anyone with a court order; so while the original can’t come to the court, the court can in a sense come to the original.

  441. avatar
    BatGuano May 16, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    yguy:
    A request for the original BC is no more a fishing expedition than is the request from a highway patrolman for a driver’s license.

    in this analogy it would be the equivalent of a highway patrolman asking to see your original driver’s test ( after you have shown your driver’s license ).

  442. avatar
    BatGuano May 16, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    sorry for the repeat on the thought scientist.

    “birds of a feather” ad all….

  443. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    BatGuano:
    in this analogy it would be the equivalent of a highway patrolman asking to see your original driver’s test ( after you have shown your driver’s license ).

    No, because he wouldn’t expect me to have that in my possession, any more than I expect Obama to have a copy of his original BC. Now if I were able to keep the results of my driver’s test under seal and refused him access, clearly the officer would have probable cause to suspect the license wasn’t issued legally.

  444. avatar
    Walter White May 16, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    Scientist:
    The COLB IS the driver’s license.The cop has run the license through the DMV and it checks out; i.e. it has been verified by state officials.Now he wants to see the written exam and the report of the road test.

    After running the license, the cop is going to see the DMV has amended the COLB and the suspect altered his COLB so the cop won’t know the COLB has been amended.

    That’s a conflict of information will reflect poorly on the veracity of the suspect. Why did he alter his COLB? Why doesn’t the suspect want the cop to know an amendment was made at the DMV? And who is Barry Soetoro?

  445. avatar
    SFJeff May 16, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    “There’s your problem: you make the assumption that the COLB is the result of lawful acts – which is unwarranted in light of Obama’s opacity in this matter, to say nothing of the questionable signals being sent by the DoH.”

    Thats right- we- like any reasonable person- assume the BC is legal and official- because thats what BC’s are assumed unless shown otherwise.

    Opacity? Refusing to provide a few malcontents with access to documents they don’t need?

    Mixed signals? The DOH has unequivocly said President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Oh the drivers license analogy? Its not as if a policeman stopped a driver and asked for the drivers license- its more like some random guy coming up to you as you are getting into your car and demanding to see your drivers license and then demanding to see your original drivers license.

  446. avatar
    BatGuano May 16, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    yguy:
    Now if I were able to keep the results of my driver’s test under seal and refused him access,

    as far as i know the results of driver’s test are not open to the public ( you say sealed ) and the officer would not have access to them ( without a warrant ).

  447. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Let me take a stab at this tortured analogy:

    You (President Obama) get pulled over (taken to court) and the officer (judge) asks for your driver’s license (birth certificate). You show him your DL (COLB) and he calls up the DMV (Hawaii DOH) and gets them to verify that it is authentic. At this point the officer has absolutely no reason to believe that you are not a licensed driver (born in the USA) – and if there is a notice that you have changed your address (amended the COLB) it doesn’t change these facts.

  448. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    This got posted up at the beginning of this thread, so I’m reposting it as a reply…

    Let me take a stab at this tortured analogy:

    You (President Obama) get pulled over (taken to court) and the officer (judge) asks for your driver’s license (birth certificate). You show him your DL (COLB) and he calls up the DMV (Hawaii DOH) and gets them to verify that it is authentic. At this point the officer has absolutely no reason to believe that you are not a licensed driver (born in the USA) – and if there is a notice that you have changed your address (amended the COLB) it doesn’t change these facts.

  449. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Dr. C,

    I really don’t understand the bug in the ordering of comments… You said in your changes log that you have resolved to go to strict chronology (no nesting). Any idea when you will do this?

  450. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    BatGuano:
    as far as i know the results ofdriver’s test are not open to the public ( you say sealed ) and the officer would not have access to them ( without a warrant ).

    But why on Earth would I care whether he accessed them or not?

    And why would Obama’s privacy rights be substantially violated by the release of a document presumably containing little more information than is on a document he has already published?

  451. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Slartibartfast: This got posted up at the beginning of this thread, so I’m reposting it as a reply…Let me take a stab at this tortured analogy:You (President Obama) get pulled over (taken to court) and the officer (judge) asks for your driver’s license (birth certificate). You show him your DL (COLB) and he calls up the DMV (Hawaii DOH) and gets them to verify that it is authentic. At this point the officer has absolutely no reason to believe that you are not a licensed driver (born in the USA) – and if there is a notice that you have changed your address (amended the COLB) it doesn’t change these facts.

    Traffic stops are routine occurrences, and presumably have no bearing on national security. The same cannot be said for the verification of presidential eligibility.

  452. avatar
    Bob Ross May 16, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    yguy:
    There’s your problem: you make the assumption that the COLB is the result of lawful acts – which is unwarranted in light of Obama’s opacity in this matter, to say nothing of the questionable signals being sent by the DoH.
    Those were all criminal proceedings. A request for the original BC is no more a fishing expedition than is the request from a highway patrolman for a driver’s license.

    There is nothing questionable being sent by the DOH. Not everyone is completely paranoid like you seem to be yguy. Yeah it is a fishing expedition you’re assuming the long form has different information even though there’s no proof of that. No in your analogy it would be like the patrolman after seeing your driver’s license then going on asking for a retinal scan, dna test, passport, transcripts, kindergarten class graduation certificate.

  453. avatar
    Bob Ross May 16, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    yguy:
    Traffic stops are routine occurrences, and presumably have no bearing on national security. The same cannot be said for the verification of presidential eligibility.

    So then what was the point of your failed analogy?

  454. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Bob Ross,

    Exactly.

    yguy,

    Whether it’s a traffic stop or a matter of national security, there are procedures to be followed. If a judge asks President Obama for proof of his birth in Hawaii a certified copy of his COLB and a statement from the DOH is sufficient to establish that he is born in Hawaii (and hence a natural born citizen by the precedent set in Wong Kim Ark) to the satisfaction of any court in the land unless evidence can be offered to cast doubt on the veracity of the COLB and the Hawaii DOH. So far no evidence of this nature has been offered and there is no reason to think that any exists.

  455. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    SFJeff:
    Opacity? Refusing to provide a few malcontents with access to documents they don’t need?

    We have at least as much need to see the original as Obama decided we had to see the COLB, obviously – if we care about the Constitution, that is.

    Slartibartfast: unless evidence can be offered to cast doubt on the veracity of the COLB and the Hawaii DOH.So far no evidence of this nature has been offered and there is no reason to think that any exists.

    There most certainly is: Obama’s refusal to release the original.

  456. avatar
    BatGuano May 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    yguy:
    …. obviously – if we care about the Constitution, that is.

    how many presidents’ birth certificates have you seen ?

  457. avatar
    NbC May 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    Traffic stops are routine occurrences, and presumably have no bearing on national security. The same cannot be said for the verification of presidential eligibility.

    That’s a meaningless position, legally speaking. In fact, the verification of Presidential qualifications is Constitutionally assigned to Congress. You somehow want to get Courts to get involved in an issue where the Constitution precludes them from interfering.

    And for good reasons…
    Once a President has been elected, found to have qualified and is sworn in, there is only one branch which can undo this: Congress, through the Constitutional process of impeachment.

  458. avatar
    NbC May 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    And why would Obama’s privacy rights be substantially violated by the release of a document presumably containing little more information than is on a document he has already published?

    That’s a two edged sword my friend.

  459. avatar
    NbC May 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    yguy: “There’s your problem: you make the assumption that the COLB is the result of lawful acts – which is unwarranted in light of Obama’s opacity in this matter, to say nothing of the questionable signals being sent by the DoH.”

    The document was signed by the DOH of Hawaii, and it had a raised seal. That makes it a prima facie legal evidence. Your claim that the COLB is the result of unlawful acts needs a bit more than your ‘assertion’. As to the ‘questionable signals’, how much clearer can one be than: President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen?

    Your suggestions are hardly that ‘reasonable’ as it place the doubt and burden on the President who has already released what is a prima facie legal document.
    If you want to impugn the document, you have to show some real evidence…

  460. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    BatGuano:
    how many presidents’ birth certificates have you seen ?

    None. How many Presidents have published abstracts and moved to suppress the original by way of legal action?

  461. avatar
    NbC May 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    None. How many Presidents have published abstracts and moved to suppress the original by way of legal action?

    None, as far as I know.

  462. avatar
    Bovril May 16, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Yguy

    Said “abstract” is regarded IN LAW as whole and sufficient for ALL legal purposes.

    Said “abstract” is all that is available, irrespective of whether you are President or pauper

    Said “abstract” has never had a single credible rebuttal as to its authenticity

    Said “abstract” has been further supported in its content by the legal custodians of said “original” data

    Your whining does not change the fact one iota

    Go troll elsewhere

  463. avatar
    NbC May 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Excellent points.

    §338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]

    §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. Data pertaining to the father of a child is prima facie evidence if:

    and

    §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]

  464. avatar
    BatGuano May 16, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    yguy:
    None. How many Presidents have published abstracts and moved to suppress the original by way of legal action?

    none.

    “…moved to suppress the original by way of legal action?”

    obama has taken absolutely zero legal action to suppress the original. zero. it is not a public document.

  465. avatar
    NbC May 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    Let me also clarify that the President has not, to my best knowledge, moved to suppress and such data.

    In fact, the following may be observed

    1. The documents are protected by State and Federal privacy laws.
    2. When legal cases were filed, which included attempts to get the full certificate, the President filed replies in which it was outlined why the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
    3. When the Court is informed of lack of subject matter jurisdiction or sua sponte raises the issue, and finds that there is indeed such a lack, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the action.

    Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot be waived!!!

  466. avatar
    Bob Ross May 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    yguy:
    None. How many Presidents have published abstracts and moved to suppress the original by way of legal action?

    He hasn’t suppressed the original. The original will never be released. Only a copy and that long form is protected by statute. How many other presidents have you complained about prior to Obama not releasing their “full” birth certificate?

  467. avatar
    Scientist May 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    yguy: Traffic stops are routine occurrences, and presumably have no bearing on national security. The same cannot be said for the verification of presidential eligibility.

    Drunk drivers kill approximately 13,000 people every single year in the US (5x the casualties of 9/11), not to mention those seriously injured or those harmed by non-impaired reckless drivers. My security is far more at risk from drunk/reckless drivers on my local roads than from anything any President does.

    And I am waiting, despite numerous requests, for anyone to tell me how an honest, competent President who happened to be born outside the US would be more dangerous than a US-born incompetent idiot or a US-born corrupt crook bought and payed for by foreign powers.

  468. avatar
    misha May 16, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Walter White: And who is Barry Soetoro?

    Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?

  469. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    yguy: How many Presidents have published abstracts and moved to suppress the original by way of legal action?

    In common usage, a question put like this is an assertion that President Obama has moved to suppress the release of his hospital birth certificate. If you didn’t mean to assert this, please say so, but if you did then I would expect you to be able to be more specific as to when and where you think this alleged legal action occurred. I will tell you at the outset that I do not know of such an instance.

    A motion by Obama to dismiss a case in which he is accused of various crimes, where no document had been subpoenaed is not suppression of the release of a document. There was a case brought against the State of Hawaii by Andy Martin demanding the release of Obama’s hospital birth certificate, and the President did intervene in the case in any way.

  470. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    I said:

    “…unless evidence can be offered to cast doubt on the veracity of the COLB and the Hawaii DOH.So far no evidence of this nature has been offered and there is no reason to think that any exists.”

    yguy said:

    “There most certainly is: Obama’s refusal to release the original.”

    Please provide evidence of President Obama refusing to release his original long form birth certificate to any proper authority who has asked for it. (By the way, whining by birthers on blogs is not a proper authority nor is there any reason to assume that President Obama has seen it or any need for him to reply if he has.) While you are at it, you could also provide evidence of the supposed millions of dollars that he has spent to suppress a document which is protected by privacy laws.

  471. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Bovril:
    Said “abstract” is all that is available, irrespective of whether you are President or pauper

    HRS §338-13 and §338-18 say otherwise.

  472. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    Scientist:
    My security is far more at risk from drunk/reckless drivers on my local roads than from anything any President does.

    I guess you don’t know how revealing it is that you conflate your personal security with national security.

    And I am waiting, despite numerous requests, for anyone to tell me how an honest, competent President who happened to be born outside the US would be more dangerous than a US-born incompetent idiot or a US-born corrupt crook bought and payed for by foreign powers.

    Without going into Obama’s incompetence – other than in his efforts demoralize the American people – if he wasn’t born in the US, he lied to get into office, which means there is no way he can fulfill the presidential oath other than by resigning; and if he’s not there to fulfill the oath, he is there for some reason you don’t wanna know about.

  473. avatar
    misha May 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    yguy: HRS §338-13 and §338-18 say otherwise.

    Links please, and exact quotes. As long as we are at it, Obama should not give in one iota to your crowd. It did not affect his election, and it will not affect his re-election, then Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

  474. avatar
    Bovril May 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    yguy: HRS §338-13 and §338-18 say otherwise.

    Tut tut tut

    Yguy

    This irrelevance was ansered earlier…in fact if I recall correctly by myself.

    HRS §338-13

    §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]

    Guess what that’s the COLB…..

    HRS §338-13

    §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    (1) The registrant;

    (2) The spouse of the registrant;

    (3) A parent of the registrant;

    (4) A descendant of the registrant;

    (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

    (6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

    (7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

    (8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;

    (9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

    (10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;

    (11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

    (12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

    (13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

    (c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

    (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

    (e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

    (f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

    (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

    (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

    (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;

    (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

    (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

    (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2

    Oooooooh, that means yiou and the Birfers don’t fall into ANY of these categories

    Come on Yguy….try and stay on point …..divvy

  475. avatar
    Bob Ross May 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    yguy:
    I guess you don’t know how revealing it is that you conflate your personal security with national security.
    Without going into Obama’s incompetence – other than in his efforts demoralize the American people – if he wasn’t born in the US, he lied to get into office, which means there is no way he can fulfill the presidential oath other than by resigning; and if he’s not there to fulfill the oath, he is there for some reason you don’t wanna know about.

    In other words: “the black guy won and we don’t like it so no matter what we’re going to make sure to personally attack him just like we did Clinton.”

  476. avatar
    misha May 16, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    yguy: Without going into Obama’s incompetence – other than in his efforts demoralize the American people

    Demoralize? Buchanan just said there are too many Jews on the SC. Don’t leave me these openings…

    Hey, where are the weapons in Iraq?

  477. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    NbC: (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.

    So you think the COLB should be considered a copy of the original even though the original lists information not shown on the COLB. Have I got that right?

  478. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    yguy said:

    “So you think the COLB should be considered a copy of the original even though the original lists information not shown on the COLB. Have I got that right?”

    The point is that the information on the COLB is a copy of the information on the original – do you honestly believe that the COLB (a certified copy that matches the version posted online) has any information on it which DIFFERS from the long form?

    And as for President Obama’s alleged incompetence, he could clear the bar set by his predecessor while tunneling (the same thing goes for his legitimacy as well). Personally, I can’t tell you how much safer I feel and how much prouder I am of my country since his inauguration.

  479. avatar
    Scientist May 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    yguy: if he wasn’t born in the US, he lied to get into office

    Wait just a doggone minute. The scenario I have heard from the birthers is that the President’s parents and maternal grandparents committed a fraud by registering a foreign birth as having occurred in Hawaii. If they did such a criminal act, they likely wouldn’t tell him. In fact, he would be an innocent victim.

    And if lying by Presidents was a grave threat to national security, the US would have ceased to exist a long rime ago

  480. avatar
    ron May 16, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    I respectfully would like to submit portions of an article that I feel supports why many feel the LTCol has made a mistake as far as the military is concerned, link is provided so the article may be read in its entirety.

    Air University Review, May-June 1980
    Free Speech, the Military, and the National Interest

    Major Felix F. Moran
    http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/may-jun/moran.html

    unique position of senior officers

    In our democracy, formulation of policy is constitutionally vested in the civilian authorities of government. The professional military man merely executes policy in a nonpartisan manner. Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz explained this situation, stating: “The subordination of the political point of view to the military would be unreasonable, for policy has created war; policy is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument, and not the reverse. The subordination of the military point of view is, therefore, the only thing which is possible.”28

    Throughout our history some senior military officers have been unable to accept this concept and have challenged its traditions, but most have recognized the wisdom of civilian supremacy and reconciled any differences they may have had with their government. The Continental Congress insisted in 1774 on civilian control of the military. General Washington made it clear that he would bow to the congressional will, even if he was personally opposed to its policy.29 General U. S. Grant, while commanding federal troops during the Civil War, expressed his feelings on the subject by stating: “So long as I hold my present position, I do not believe I have the right to criticize the policy or orders of those above me, or give utterance to views of my own, except to the authorities in Washington.”30 General George C. Marshall, perhaps the greatest soldier-statesman in our history, recalling his differences with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, hastened to add, “But I didn’t make any public speeches.”31 General Marshall approved of General Douglas MacArthur’s removal from command, saying that the situation of a local theater commander publicly voicing his displeasure and disagreement with the foreign policy of the nation was “wholly unprecedented.”32

    This view is shared equally by the civilian leadership within the government. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in a report released in October 1962, concluded that “once the decision has been made by the properly constituted authorities the military man must support it. . . . If, in good conscience, he cannot live with a decision, he should divest himself of his uniform and carry on his fight in a civilian status.”33

    Continuing this tradition, current guidelines have been clarified and reinforced by Secretary of the Army Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., in his address at West Point on 8 June 1977. Secretary Alexander outlined three distinct forums for opinion by the military professional:
    1. Within the military: Opinions can be voiced freely within the chain of command. Once a final decision has been made, however, the soldier’s responsibility is to work in a creative and dedicated manner to execute the decision.
    2. Before Congress: A military man can freely express personal opinion when asked. Once policy has been established, it is his duty to cite the policy and his intent to follow it. If asked, he can state an opinion at odds with the policy, so long as the opinion is so identified.
    3. Dealing with the media: The officer must be aware that even before policy is established, expressing personal opinion may be contrary to the national interest. On the other hand, in some cases, discussion may be helpful in the formulation of policy. The official must be sure to state that policy has not been established or is subject to final review by military or civilian authority.34
    Secretary Alexander further noted that, “in almost no instance will the national interest be served by a military person voicing disagreement with established policy. . . . Attempts to achieve outside the chain of command what one could not achieve inside the chain of command are out of keeping with this tradition [of the President as Commander-in-Chief] and inconsistent with military professionalism.”35

    : “No officer or man in the armed forces has a right, be it constitutional, statutory or otherwise, to publish any information [or make any statement] which will imperil his unit or its cause.”37

    Enforcement of these regulations, policy restraints, and traditional restrictions affecting discipline is accomplished through seven articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).12 Specific articles prohibit:
    1. Commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the President and other senior civilian government officials.
    2. Any person from behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer.
    3. Insubordinate conduct (speech) toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer.
    4. Willful disobedience of an order or regulation.
    5. Persons from making provoking or reproachful speeches or gestures towards other persons subject to the UCMJ.
    6. Conduct unbecoming an officer.
    7. Conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces, or that will bring discredit upon the service.

  481. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 16, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Scientist: The scenario I have heard from the birthers is that the President’s parents and maternal grandparents committed a fraud by registering a foreign birth as having occurred in Hawaii.

    That’s just a cover story. I disclosed the true cover-up back in January of 2009, a scenario which explains everything and which no one has been able to disprove.

  482. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 7:27 pm #

    So you think the COLB should be considered a copy of the original even though the original lists information not shown on the COLB. Have I got that right?

    That is correct. For the purpose of establishing Obama’s location of birth it is indeed sufficient.

    That’s the end of your fishing expedition my dear friend. Lacking any evidence to counter the prima facie evidence you are doomed to use irrelevant arguments, disguised as concern and interest in the Constitution while at the same time rejecting said Constitution.

  483. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    yguy: Without going into Obama’s incompetence – other than in his efforts demoralize the American people – if he wasn’t born in the US, he lied to get into office, which means there is no way he can fulfill the presidential oath other than by resigning; and if he’s not there to fulfill the oath, he is there for some reason you don’t wanna know about.

    You are right, your continued efforts to de-legitimatize Obama’s presidency demoralizes the American People, undermine our Country and its Constitution. All because you have some irrational fears.
    Am I close?

  484. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    yguy: HRS §338-13 and §338-18 say otherwise.

    Not really. The policies of the DOH clearly explain that they will only provide a COLB. If there is legitimate need for certification or other data then that may, under certain circumstance be obtained.
    But there are not legitimate circumstances really to provide you or others access to information that is totally irrelevant to Obama’s location of birth.

    And yet you insist that Obama’s so-called reluctance to provide such data is somehow suspect because after all, you believe that he may be illegitimate?
    Fool. There is no legal, or reasoned foundation for such a position.

  485. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    Bob Ross: I guess you don’t know how revealing it is that you conflate your personal security with national security.

    Hear hear. There is no interest in national security or the impact of the continued efforts to undermine a duly elected president all because of some personal concerns.
    Thank God, the Constitution recognizes such in more than one relevant way.

  486. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In common usage, a question put like this is an assertion that President Obama has moved to suppress the release of his hospital birth certificate. If you didn’t mean to assert this, please say so, but if you did then I would expect you to be able to be more specific as to when and where you think this alleged legal action occurred.

    […]

    Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083

    Obama’s attorney evidently filed a motion titled “Obama, Defense request for Protective Order re Discovery”, but the pdf link appears to be dead.

  487. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    Bovril: Oooooooh, that means yiou and the Birfers don’t fall into ANY of these categories
    *
    *

    Your claim was that the original isn’t available to anyone.

    *
    *
    Come on Yguy….try and stay on point
    *
    *

    Show me how.

  488. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Slartibartfast: yguy said:
    The point is that the information on the COLB is a copy of the information on the original – do you honestly believe that the COLB (a certified copy that matches the version posted online) has any information on it which DIFFERS from the long form?
    *
    *

    No, the long form has information which differs from the COLB, since the former contains additional information including the name of the hospital and the signature of the attending physician. Thus, the COLB cannot possibly be a copy of the long form.

  489. avatar
    misha May 16, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Scientist: And if lying by Presidents was a grave threat to national security, the US would have ceased to exist a long rime ago

    -Yeah, like the Gulf of Tonkin claim, and WMDs.

  490. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    yguy said:
    “No, the long form has information which differs from the COLB, since the former contains additional information including the name of the hospital and the signature of the attending physician. Thus, the COLB cannot possibly be a copy of the long form.”

    The information on the COLB is COPIED from the original document – the fact that there is more information on the original document than on the COLB is irrelevant since the only information necessary to confirm President Obama’s natural born status is his place of birth which would be the same on the original document as it is on a certified copy of the COLB (and this has been verified by officials of the Hawaii DOH).

  491. avatar
    Scientist May 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    yguy: After 489 posts you have gotten exactly nowhere. Here is the reality. The President has released all he is going to release (which is more than any of his predecessors). He isn’t going to release anything else. All the cases are dead; no court is going to do anything.

    It’s over. Even someone as dense as you can see that. That you are unhappy is your problem.

  492. avatar
    Bovril May 16, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Yguy go bye bye….?

    Alas unlikely……

  493. avatar
    yguy May 16, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    The information on the COLB is COPIED from the original document …
    *
    *

    None of this is relevant to the fact that Obama is every bit as entitled to a copy of the original as he is to a COLB under HI law.

  494. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 16, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    yguy:
    None of this is relevant to the fact that Obama is every bit as entitled to a copy of the original as he is to a COLB under HI law.

    And that’s not relevant to the fact that neither you nor anyone else is entitled to any of the additional information there and a certified copy of the COLB (that has the same information as the one that was posted online) is prima facie evidence that the President is a natural born citizen.

  495. avatar
    Scientist May 16, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    yguy: None of this is relevant to the fact that Obama is every bit as entitled to a copy of the original as he is to a COLB under HI law.

    He doesn’t want a copy of the original. He has no use for it. He isn’t going to request one. He isn’t reading this board, so no matter how many times you ask him, he still won’t do it. Not gonna happen. Do you inderstand now???

  496. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    yguy: Obama’s attorney evidently filed a motion titled “Obama, Defense request for Protective Order re Discovery”, but the pdf link appears to be dead.

    Yes, the president did not want discovery before subject matter jurisdiction had been determined.

    Surely you understand the difference?

  497. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    yguy: No, the long form has information which differs from the COLB, since the former contains additional information including the name of the hospital and the signature of the attending physician. Thus, the COLB cannot possibly be a copy of the long form.

    You are wrong again, the COLB is a copy of the information on the long form, just not an exhaustive one. Since you have failed to show why you would need access to the long form since the short form provides all the necessary data to decide the natural born status of the President, I wonder your insistence that you be granted such privilege?

  498. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    yguy: None of this is relevant to the fact that Obama is every bit as entitled to a copy of the original as he is to a COLB under HI law.

    And yet, the DOH of Hawaii no longer distributes long form certificates…

    Bummer…

  499. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 16, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    yguy: Obama’s attorney evidently filed a motion titled “Obama, Defense request for Protective Order re Discovery”, but the pdf link appears to be dead.

    Berg filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and expedited discovery. The TRO was to prevent Obama from running for president. The motion was denied.

    Then Berg filed a motion for “Extensive Discovery and Expedited Discovery” INCLUDING a deposition of Barack Obama and Howard Dean with the appointment of a special master. That motion, if granted, would have required candidate Obama to turn over a list of 9 documents within 10 days and an additional 8 documents within 20 days. It is notable here that several of the documents are by all accounts fictional. (This is similar to the list that floats around the Internet to this day, and reading this material reminds me that there isn’t much in this conspiracy business that wasn’t in the original Berg v. Obama et al lawsuit. He even asked for Social Security applications and reissuance documents.) This was filed on September 9, 2008.

    On September 24, Obama’s attorneys moved for dismissal.

    On October 6, Obama’s attorneys move for a MOTION for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive. That is, Obama asked for discovery not to take place until after the court ruled on the motion to dismiss. The motion said, in part:

    Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery. “While the court should not automatically stay discovery because a motion to dismiss has been filed, a stay is proper where the likelihood that such motion may result in a narrowing or an outright elimination of discovery outweighs the likely harm to be produced by the delay.’” 19th

    Since Berg had already stated that he intended to depose candidate Obama as part of the discovery, and given that the publicity surrounding such a deposition would be detrimental to his campaign, it is equally reasonable to conclude that the motion for a protective order applied as much to the deposition as it did to the list of documents, of which the “vault version” birth certificate was only one of 17 (some of which are by all accounts fictional).

    So as I said in my initial comment, these things are never about just the birth certificate.

    The full set of court documents is here.

  500. avatar
    nbC May 16, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Obama, Defense request for Protective Order re Discovery

    Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), defendants Democratic National Committee and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for a protective order staying all discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

    Archived here

  501. avatar
    SFJeff May 17, 2010 at 1:00 am #

    I have to say with Yguy, we just go round and round and round and round…..

    I have tried to use reason, but Yguy absolutely refuses to allow reason to impinge upon his feeling that Obama must be hiding something.

    So, I am going to reserve my responses to Yguy to only when he writes something too outragiously offensive about the President to ignore. Otherwise, I am not going to bother to refute his claims anymore, because it doesnt’ do abit of good.

  502. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 17, 2010 at 1:17 am #

    yguy: No, the long form has information which differs from the COLB, since the former contains additional information including the name of the hospital and the signature of the attending physician

    But that information is privileged and protected from disclosure, and is not in any way relevant to the issue of the time and place of Obama’s birth. It doesn’t matter what hospital he was born in or who delivered him — he could have been born in the back of a taxi cab– he’s still born in Hawaii.

  503. avatar
    G May 17, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    Over 500 comments and most of it just a merry-go-round of trying to provide rational answers and explanations to a single irrational person….*sigh*

  504. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 17, 2010 at 4:41 am #

    yguy: HI law allows physical inspection by anyone with a court order; so while the original can’t come to the court, the court can in a sense come to the original.

    What do you mean by physical inspection? You sure as hell are not going to be allowed to carbon-date it, as many birfers are demanding, because carbon-dating destroys part of that document (and of course, carbon-dating anything from 1961 is going to have an enormous margin of error). So what inspection are you going to ask for and who is going to do the inspecting? Do not forget the part about “no fishing expedition”. Are you going to cry foul when the (imaginary) court granting you discovery will appoint a Hawaiian judge to do the inspecting, and the judge refuses to consider (and divulge to the public at large) anything on the Colb except the only thing relevant to the case, ie the birth place?

    You also forget that the Colb IS now Obama’s birth certificate. Other states than Hawaii are legally obliged to accept it as such. My guess is that any court order for the “original birth certificate” may actually be stopped by the Supreme Court on those grounds, because it would be a precedent for disputing any official document issued by any state of the USA. There are even international ramifications here.

    IANAL, but I suspect the “original birth certificate” may in fact now no longer be “legal tender” but an archived historical document. The Colb is NOT based on it, but on those data that were deemed relevant for the administration to be retrieved from it and entered into the State’s database.

  505. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 17, 2010 at 5:34 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: and the judge refuses to consider (and divulge to the public at large) anything on the Colb except the only thing relevant to the case, ie the birth place?

    Er, I actually meant “anything from the long form (also mentioned on the Colb)”; I got confuzzled, noticing that anything NOT on the Colb was out of bounds anyway for privacy reasons and at the last minute added “on the Colb” not noticing the ambiguity. Sorry.

  506. avatar
    Bovril May 17, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    yguy: Your claim was that the original isn’t available to anyone.Show me how.

    Realllllllll simple

    When you quoite a law or set of laws that YOU think supports your thesis, I would suggest you read, parse and digest first THEN post.

    For example,

    Neither of the laws you referenced link legally or logically to any of the points you raised

    Neither of the laws you referenced legally or logically support any of your wild fantasies

    Neither of the laws you referenced legally or logically rebut the information you have been provided by the good folks of this board.

    Ergo

    You failed miserably to support your case and in fact supported the counters to your items…..therefore you failed to stay on point.

    I trust this assists you in your further endeavours (singularly failing to hold breath….)

  507. avatar
    Bovril May 17, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    Dear Dr C

    The “quote” function seems to be a bit selective.

    When I clocked on the quote section to answer Yguys comment it only “quoted” a single line not the whole post.

    A “feature”….8-)

  508. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 17, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    Bovril: When I clocked on the quote section to answer Yguys comment it only “quoted” a single line not the whole post.

    You need to select the section of text you want to quote before clicking the “quote” link.

  509. avatar
    Bovril May 17, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Doooooooh

  510. avatar
    yguy May 17, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    SFJeff: Yguy absolutely refuses to allow reason to impinge upon his feeling that Obama must be hiding something.
    *
    *

    That’s not a feeling, it’s a self-evident truth, even if he’s only keeping the original hidden for now with the intent publish it at an opportune time so as to make his adversaries look foolish. And that’s why you guys always end up arguing essentially that he has the right to keep it hidden.
    *
    *

    Bovril: For example,Neither of the laws you referenced link legally or logically to any of the points you raised
    *
    *

    You’re not paying attention.

    And spare me the shotgun approach, if you don’t mind. If you’re not going to respond to the voices in your head rather than what I actually say, I’m not interested.

  511. avatar
    NbC May 17, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    yguy: That’s not a feeling, it’s a self-evident truth, even if he’s only keeping the original hidden for now with the intent publish it at an opportune time so as to make his adversaries look foolish. And that’s why you guys always end up arguing essentially that he has the right to keep it hidden.
    *

    Misrepresentation of argument. We argue that he has a right to privacy and that when no compelling reasons exist he should not be forced to release it.
    And yes, it’s a feeling not a self-evident truth.

    And so yguy, empty of reason and logic is back to his original position: Obama must be hiding something…

    That’s all…

  512. avatar
    yguy May 17, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    So what inspection are you going to ask for and who is going to do the inspecting?
    *
    *

    If I had my way, three independent experts would inspect it in such a manner as to leave it substantially intact for the purposes of the state of HI, and the whole process would be videotaped, including closeups of the documentation.
    *
    *

    Are you going to cry foul when the (imaginary) court granting you discovery will appoint a Hawaiian judge to do the inspecting, and the judge refuses to consider (and divulge to the public at large) anything on the Colb except the only thing relevant to the case, ie the birth place?
    *
    *

    Since that wouldn’t constitute discovery, I’d have every reason in the world to object.
    *
    *

    You also forget that the Colb IS now Obama’s birth certificate. Other states than Hawaii are legally obliged to accept it as such. My guess is that any court order for the “original birth certificate” may actually be stopped by the Supreme Court on those grounds, because it would be a precedent for disputing any official document issued by any state of the USA.
    *
    *

    No it wouldn’t, because discovery in this case would proceed under the specific authority of the NBC clause. The only vital records that can be challenged on those grounds are those of Presidents and presidential candidates.
    *
    *

    There are even international ramifications here.IANAL, but I suspect the “original birth certificate” may in fact now no longer be “legal tender” but an archived historical document. The Colb is NOT based on it, but on those data that were deemed relevant for the administration to be retrieved from it and entered into the State’s database.
    *
    *

    IOW, the COLB is based on the original documentation, since that data cannot properly have any other source.

  513. avatar
    NbC May 17, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    yguy: No it wouldn’t, because discovery in this case would proceed under the specific authority of the NBC clause. The only vital records that can be challenged on those grounds are those of Presidents and presidential candidates.

    To establish eligibility, the COLB is sufficient. Location and time of birth establish age and natural born status.
    Residency requirements cannot be established from the COLB.
    There is no compelling reason that presidential candidates should be forced to have information released that is not provided by the DOH of their state.
    I guess you also do not believe in State rights?

    Sigh… Such foolishness, and no arguments

  514. avatar
    Bovril May 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    yguy: That’s not a feeling, it’s a self-evident truth, even if he’s only keeping the original hidden for now with the intent publish it at an opportune time so as to make his adversaries look foolish. And that’s why you guys always end up arguing essentially that he has the right to keep it hidden.**You’re not paying attention. And spare me the shotgun approach, if you don’t mind. If you’re not going to respond to the voices in your head rather than what I actually say, I’m not interested.

    For shotgun I assume you mean full and coherent unlike your failed attempt to throw irrelavent garbage in the mix?

    Please be so kind as to explain to us all how any element of my rebuttal of your asinine comments on irrelevant law is incorrect….

    I expect to hear a resounding silence

  515. avatar
    Bob Ross May 17, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    yguy: That’s not a feeling, it’s a self-evident truth, even if he’s only keeping the original hidden for now with the intent publish it at an opportune time so as to make his adversaries look foolish. And that’s why you guys always end up arguing essentially that he has the right to keep it hidden.**You’re not paying attention. And spare me the shotgun approach, if you don’t mind. If you’re not going to respond to the voices in your head rather than what I actually say, I’m not interested.

    Oh the sweet irony

  516. avatar
    yguy May 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    NbC:
    “I guess you also do not believe in State rights?”

    I most certainly do.

    Unlike you, however, I understand that they are superseded by constitutional provisions in case of conflict.

  517. avatar
    nbc May 17, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    yguy: Unlike you, however, I understand that they are superseded by constitutional provisions in case of conflict.

    The Full Faith and Credit clause versus the eligibility clause… Both are constitutional provisions.

    Sigh…

  518. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 17, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    yguy: If I had my way, three independent experts would inspect it in such a manner as to leave it substantially intact for the purposes of the state of HI, and the whole process would be videotaped, including closeups of the documentation.**Since that wouldn’t constitute discovery, I’d have every reason in the world to object.

    Here we have it. You realize you are still in Hawaii? Hawaiian laws on privacy apply. There is no way you get discovery of anything which violates that. And the Full Credit clause means it is indeed Hawaii which decides how that information is verified. Forget the closeups, you are not going to see how many cigarettes his mother smoked during her pregnancy broadcast on Fox.

    And you still haven’t solved the problem that the Colb IS the birth certificate, and no court is going to grant discovery against it without any serious doubt about it. The international ramifications if otherwise would be that any US passport would become suspicious in the eyes of any other government on the planet. A lot of work for US diplomats and a lot of administrative hassle for tourists and business travellers. Of course, that may not bother you too much – it seems a lot of birfers have never left the USA in their lives (note the use of the Vatellite plural lives).

  519. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 17, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    yguy: And that’s why you guys always end up arguing essentially that he has the right to keep it hidden.

    You have not seen me make this argument. While I say that everyone has an essential right to privacy, realistically when someone runs for high public office, they should expect that things will be brought to light that remain private for others.

    You and I have already had this discussion elsewhere, but let me say that I do not see President Obama ever asserting a right to privacy in anything having to do with his documents. We’ve had seen his Social Security number published, his parents’ divorce papers, his real estate transactions, his income tax returns; detectives have even interviewed people who live near the house where he lived as an infant. His elementary school registration is even online. And Obama himself published a very revealing and not always flattering autobiography, and even his birth certificate. He may not have signed a blanket authorization for people to dig into non-public records, but he has not taken steps to keep them hidden, beyond general moves to prevent frivolous lawsuits from proceeding.

    What I have said and will argue, is that the law should be followed. Birthers do not get a pass. If state law in Hawai’i says such and such is the requirement to obtain a copy of a document, then just because birthers are filled with angst, anger, or suspicion doesn’t mean that they don’t have to follow the same rules as everybody else. And I say the same thing about Pastor’s Manning’s kangaroo court and about those who called federal judges “traitor” just because they followed the Constitution and wouldn’t allow the birthers to save the country by destroying it.

    No, I don’t think the President of the United States has much expectation of privacy, but I say that everyone should follow the law.

  520. avatar
    SFJeff May 17, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    I was thinking about Yguy’s idealic truth commision to review the President’s birth certificate and just wanted to say that
    a) I think his plan has lots of flaws and
    b) I think there is nothing wrong with the idea of official vetting of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

    It wouldn’t even have to be mandatory- Congress could authorize a joint authority of the FBI/CIA and Secret Service to perform background security checks, that would include a review of where the candidate was born, year he was born, and number of years of residency in the United States.

    Candidates could publicly and voluntarily request the background checks. Once one candidate did this, it would become almost mandatory to step up to the plate.

    The commissions could just report whether or not the candidate was born in the United States, how old he was and years of residency, and maybe something about security.

    What I really love about this idea, is that many fringe candidates on the extreme left or right would scream bloody murder about the ‘invasion’ of their privacy.

    But that would apply to future candidates.

  521. avatar
    ron May 17, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    I encourage comments on the article I posted, as an illustration of why the LTCol is not going to prevail. There are numerous precedents showing that officers especially senior officers are not suppose to do what the LtCol has done. One of the reasons these military protocols are in place is to prevent military officers frorm trying to formulate policy in uniform.There job is to carry out policy not to create it. How many would be angry if numerous active duty generals did a world tour (or youtube video) promoting the war effort or speaking against the war effort, or campaigning for a candidate for president. They can not do that, not while on active duty, and any rational person can understand why they can’t.

    Officers can not pick and choose what protocols to support. In this case there are specific articles of the UCMJ that sets the conduct of Officers and enlisted. Once the Ltcol received his reply from the chain of command his real duty by the precedents of many before him that outrank him by a mile, was to either resign his commission or carry on as ordered .

    Yes he has rights, but not the same as one would think of in a civilian setting. if you support him on this, what about when another officer refuses orders for whatever reason under the next Republican or even Independent president. And if you do support the Ltcol’s position is it based on facts or legal precedence or on the old premise “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” Many of you that feel that way need to really give that some thought.

    This is why we don’t have military coups because of established protocols. That’s why the military has a separate judicial system, because there are some things that they must do that some civilians cannot understand . Whether or not some want to believe it , it has been the writers experience that Military courts make rulings just as much on tradition and on a notion of keeping and ensuring order and good discipline as they do law.

    In an effort to ensure freedom for all , each military man fully understands that when he is in that uniform there are some things he can not do.He understands he must give up some of his freedoms to ensure others have all of theirs. He fully understands he must follow every order issued by his chain of command and how he feels about them is moot. I don’t care if its a sunny day in July, if the general says to the MSGT its raining, the MSGT puts on his poncho period. If the general says to the LtCol there is no issue with the CIC’s place of birth. There is no issue with the CIC’s place of birth.

    This is no longer about the birth certificate, as all will soon see, but about an officer going against military tradition that has set a honorable standard for the conduct of commissioned officers. Long after the LtCol is dealt with the Military will and must be able to carry out its job of defending America without distractions.

  522. avatar
    yguy May 17, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Here we have it. You realize you are still in Hawaii? Hawaiian laws on privacy apply.

    The NBC clause trumps those in this case.

    And the Full Credit clause means it is indeed Hawaii which decides how that information is verified.

    Assuming you mean the full faith and credit clause, it applies strictly between states, and creates no barrier to federal intervention.

    The international ramifications if otherwise would be that any US passport would become suspicious in the eyes of any other government on the planet.

    Not for any good reason, especially if the original is shown to be as advertised; and if it isn’t, the blame sure as heck doesn’t fall on any “birther”.

  523. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 17, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    yguy: The NBC clause trumps [Hawai’ian privacy laws]

    I have no idea what that means in practice. It sounds sort of like “A hamster trumps a Timex.”

    First let me clarify that the laws controlling who is entitled to a certified copy of a birth certificate are more about preventing fraud than they are about privacy. Hawai’ian law (HRS §338-18 (g))) also allows a wide range of individuals, including legitimate researchers, to verify information from a birth record.

    The law (HRS §338-18 (b)(9)) says that a “court of competent jurisdiction” can determine that someone has a right to inspect a certified copy, so I see no conflict.

  524. avatar
    nbC May 17, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    yguy: The NBC clause trumps those in this case.

    And the Full Credit clause means it is indeed Hawaii which decides how that information is verified.

    Assuming you mean the full faith and credit clause, it applies strictly between states, and creates no barrier to federal intervention.

    Funny how you seem to be intent on re-interpreting Constitutional law time after time when it disagrees with your position.
    Foolish at best as it shows that you refuse to accept that your position if flawed in reason and logic.

    The same clause which explains what states have to do, also applies to the Federal Government especially when it comes to state documents. Which is why the Courts accept COLB’s for passports and as prima facie legal evidence that is admissible under FRE as self authenticating.

    From Wikipedia (I assume that you have access to these simple but effective starting points for research?_

    n 1790, shortly after the Constitution had been ratified, Congress took action under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, enacting that “the records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every Court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the Courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken.”[11] In 1813, the United States Supreme Court interpreted this federal statute, in the leading case of Mills v. Duryee.[12] Justice Joseph Story wrote for the Court that it was the federal statute (rather than the constitutional provision) that made records from one state effective in another state:

    It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court.

    Explain why you believe the US government is exempt from the full faith and credit clause, which for someone who claims to believe in state rights seems to be a somewhat foolish position.
    But of course, anything to avoid accepting the fact that we have two constitutional principles here and that the Constitution proscribes that it is Congress, not yguy or the Courts who determine the eligibility of the President.

  525. avatar
    nbC May 17, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The law (HRS §338-18 (b)(9)) says that a “court of competent jurisdiction” can determine that someone has a right to inspect a certified copy, so I see no conflict.

    Inspect a certified copy, which is determine by the State of Hawaii to be a COLB?

  526. avatar
    yguy May 18, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have no idea what that means in practice.

    It means a federal court order issued in pursuance of the NBC clause and the take care clause would override any law by which HI could justify withholding access to the feds.

    The law (HRS §338-18 (b)(9)) says that a “court of competent jurisdiction” can determine that someone has a right to inspect a certified copy, so I see no conflict.

    There wouldn’t be, unless HI decided to make some cockamamie states rights claim, as has been hinted at by some.

    Also, the law allows inspection by persons with “tangible interest” of ANY of their records, not just copies thereof.

  527. avatar
    NbC May 18, 2010 at 1:00 am #

    yguy: Also, the law allows inspection by persons with “tangible interest” of ANY of their records, not just copies thereof.

    Of course, the Courts do not have to allow access to the full records when the COLB is presented as it constitutes prima facie legal evidence as to the natural born status of President Obama.
    So why would a Court force Hawaii to release the ‘full records’ when it provides the necessary information?

    Of course, standing precludes Courts from even granting discovery but you seem to be under the flawed impression that anything goes under the rules of discovery.

    There is no compelling reason for Courts to go beyond that which the DOH of Hawaii already provides for.

    So in order of relevance

    1. Lack of Standing
    2. Prima facie legal status of COLB which is self authenticating under the FRE
    3. Full faith and credit clause which states that the Courts will have to accept the COLB as equivalent to the original, when it comes to establishing natural born status
    4. Lack of reason why the Courts should subpoena additional records.

  528. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 18, 2010 at 5:29 am #

    SFJeff: I was thinking about Yguy’s idealic truth commission to review the President’s birth certificate and just wanted to say that a) I think his plan has lots of flaws and b) I think there is nothing wrong with the idea of official vetting of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. It wouldn’t even have to be mandatory- Congress could authorize a joint authority of the FBI/CIA and Secret Service to perform background security checks, that would include a review of where the candidate was born, year he was born, and number of years of residency in the United States. Candidates could publicly and voluntarily request the background checks. Once one candidate did this, it would become almost mandatory to step up to the plate. The commissions could just report whether or not the candidate was born in the United States, how old he was and years of residency, and maybe something about security.What I really love about this idea, is that many fringe candidates on the extreme left or right would scream bloody murder about the invasion’ of their privacy.But that would apply to future candidates.

    There are two little problems here:

    1) on what would the review be based? On the “long form”? But that document may soon no longer exist – everything will go electronic, the hospital will send the medical info on it straight to some federal “medical info on births” database and the vital statistics part straight to the state’s demographic database; And if the long form still exists (and was not destroyed because of lack of storage space for old papers) there is the interesting possibility that the candidate’s mother may still be alive – she may object to her medical info being available to Congress, or she may pretend to do so because she does not like her son or daughter to run. As far as I know, the US Constitution does not say you need your mother’s consent to run for President.

    2) it is the states who decide how to designate electors. They are not even obliged to run elections. So, any rules to vet candidates would have to be decided by the individual states – the same authorities who have to be given and have to give full faith and credit about these birth certificates.

    Though I believe that any discrepancy between the (imaginary) states’ rules on vetting candidates would centre on residency rather than natural-born citizenship, the implications of one state declaring another state’s COLB false, are too grave to contemplate; Just imagine what would have happened if states like New York, Texas and Florida had stopped Herbert Hoover from getting on the ticket in 1928 – on the grounds that he was a legal resident of London, UK, between 1914 and 1916.

  529. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 18, 2010 at 7:23 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: But that document may soon no longer exist – everything will go electronic, the hospital will send the medical info on it straight to some federal “medical info on births” database and the vital statistics part straight to the state’s demographic database;

    I think it unlikely that medical data will go directly to the federal government, at least for the foreseeable future. First, the states themselves want the data for their own medical/statistical purposes, and second, the state vital records agencies are funded partially by the NCHS that pays for the data. The states would lose a source of revenue if they were not brokers between the hospitals and the federal government.

  530. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 18, 2010 at 7:29 am #

    yguy: Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have no idea what that means in practice.

    It means a federal court order issued in pursuance of the NBC clause and the take care clause would override any law by which HI could justify withholding access to the feds.

    I have no idea what that means in practice either. I don’t see that the clause on presidential eligibility creates any jurisdiction of a federal court. There are clauses that say that Congress can make laws to set up a uniform system of naturalization, and that the courts can hear controversies; I understand how those clauses give powers to branches of the government, but I do not see how the presidential eligibility clause grants the courts power to do anything.

  531. avatar
    tallbull May 18, 2010 at 10:16 am #

    Hey guys and gals.

    Care to comment on the 1928 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary regarding the definition of native, native citizen. It is on page. 833.

    Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. There is no distinction between a native born and a natural born.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2513818/posts?q=1&amp;;page=401 post 471.

    We have a respected law dictionary the Supreme Court uses that says Obama is an illegal President.

  532. avatar
    Lupin May 18, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. There is no distinction between a native born and a natural born.

    We have a respected law dictionary the Supreme Court uses that says Obama is an illegal President.

    Even is that were true, the quote you mention says nothing of the kind. This is a group plural, as is “only children whose parents are members can use the pool”. Unless the wording specifies both parents or two parents, this is usually understood to mean that one parent at least must be a member — on in your case, a citizen.

    So Obama is perfectly legitimate since his mother was a US citizen.

  533. avatar
    tallbull May 18, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    It is the Vattel definition. Spinning does not work. This Law Dictionary states clearly Obama is illegal.

  534. avatar
    Walter White May 18, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    tallbull: Hey guys and gals.Care to comment on the 1928 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary regarding the definition of native, native citizen. It is on page. 833.Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. There is no distinction between a native born and a natural born.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2513818/posts?q=1&amp;;page=401post 471.We have a respected law dictionary the Supreme Court uses that says Obama is an illegal President.

    Nice avatar. Longbow Apache helicopter?

  535. avatar
    Bovril May 18, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    Tallbull

    Wong Kim Arc …..care to comment,….?

  536. avatar
    misha May 18, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    tallbull: It is the Vattel definition. Spinning does not work. This Law Dictionary states clearly Obama is illegal.

    I found (Obama’s?) an authentic Kenya BC! Maybe you can use this against him.

    Good catch!

  537. avatar
    Greg May 18, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    tallbull: We have a respected law dictionary the Supreme Court uses that says Obama is an illegal President.

    Google Scholar – Bouvier Dictionary = 2,990
    Black’s Dictionary – 204,000

    Anyway, the 1914 version of the Dictionary says this:

    Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office ; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the united States, except the offices of president and vice-president.

    The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, ΠΈΠ³ under the common naturalization acts. It Is incident to birth in the country, or it Is given personally by statute ; Pamphlet by Mr. Binney on the Allenigense of the United States (1853), partly published in 2 Am. L. Reg. 193 (1854).

    Citizenship within the nation is NOT dependent on the citizenship of the father.

    Page 491.

    Your quote, however, is not a single definition, but two different and distinct theories of natural born citizenship – that of Blackstone:

    Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it.

    and the “law of nations” as described by Morse:

    Under view of the law of nations, natives, or naturalborn citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. The country of the father is that of the children.

    But, not even Morse said that this law of nations’ view was that of the United States:

    The expression, ” natural-born citizen,” recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, — that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen. Nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individual and the government.

    There’s a reason why a legal writing gives citations, tallbull. It’s so you can look up what it’s citing!

  538. avatar
    BatGuano May 18, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    tallbull: Hey guys and gals.Care to comment on the 1928 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary regarding the definition of native, native citizen. It is on page. 833.

    is this the page you’re talking about ?

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/14185819-post2360.html

  539. avatar
    yguy May 18, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have no idea what that means in practice either. I don’t see that the clause on presidential eligibility creates any jurisdiction of a federal court. There are clauses that say that Congress can make laws to set up a uniform system of naturalization, and that the courts can hear controversies; I understand how those clauses give powers to branches of the government, but I do not see how the presidential eligibility clause grants the courts power to do anything.

    Seems to me we’re covering old ground here, but if you can see that, e.g., A4S2C1 implicitly allows federal judicial review of certain acts by individual states, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to say the NBC clause does likewise.

  540. avatar
    Dave May 18, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    tallbull: It is the Vattel definition. Spinning does not work. This Law Dictionary states clearly Obama is illegal.

    I do have a comment. Since this clearly states that the President is “illegal,” you need to bring this to the attention of the GOP members of Congress. There are nearly 200 of them, so with this kind of clear evidence you should have no trouble getting at least a few of them to call for an a Congressional investigation.
    But if it should turn out that not one single one of them will do this in spite of your clear evidence, you might stop and ask yourself why. I’d be interested to hear what you come up with.

  541. avatar
    Ballantine May 18, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    tallbull: Hey guys and gals.Care to comment on the 1928 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary regarding the definition of native, native citizen. It is on page. 833.Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. There is no distinction between a native born and a natural born.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2513818/posts?q=1&amp;;page=401 post 471.We have a respected law dictionary the Supreme Court uses that says Obama is an illegal President.

    .

    I suggest you look up such edition of Bouvier’s dictionary and see that the term is defined by Blackstone as well. I also suggest you look at the versions of the Bouvier and other dictionaries and treatises closer to the founding:

    .

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)

    .

    “NATIVES. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered as natives.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    .

    “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States… ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
    .

    NATIVE CITIZEN. A person born in the United States since the declaration of independence, or before, if he has removed here since that event ; or the child of a citizen born abroad, if his parents have ever resided here. 2 Ililliard’s Kcal Prop. 190. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 737 (1851)

    .

    “Native. A person born within the limits of a country. A citizen or inhabitant by birth.” Calvin Townsend, Analysis of Civil Government, pg. 325 (1869).
    .

    “At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Citizens of each State, collectively, constituted the Citizens of the United States ; and were either Native Citizens, or those born within the United States, or naturalized Citizens, or persons born elsewhere, but who, upon assuming the allegiance, had become entitled to the privileges, of native Citizens.” Wiiliam Duer, A course of lectures on the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, pg. 231, (1845)

  542. avatar
    Dave May 18, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    yguy:
    Seems to me we’re covering old ground here, but if you can see that, e.g.,A4S2C1 implicitly allows federal judicial review of certain acts by individual states, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to say the NBC clause does likewise.

    “Review” is a bit vague, I wonder if you could clarify a bit — what exactly do you envision the federal courts being empowered to order? The Constitution is quite clear that they can’t throw the President out of office. So what do you think they could do?

  543. avatar
    nbC May 18, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    tallbull: We have a respected law dictionary the Supreme Court uses that says Obama is an illegal President.

    Weird because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark clearly states otherwise. Guess the dictionary is wrong.

  544. avatar
    nbC May 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm #