Main Menu

Official Hawaiian birth certification appears in court

imageUnder Hawaiian law, a lawyer can request the verification of a vital record that appears in a legal proceeding. The law says:

§338-18  Disclosure of records…

(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: …

(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 for purposes of legal proceedings;

Orly Taitz submitted a copy of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate in the Mississippi case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, and when the defense submitted a more legible copy for the record, Taitz demanded sanctions for their asking the court to take judicial notice of a fraudulent document. While the defense never asked the Court to take judicial notice of the certificate, in their defense they nevertheless asked the State of Hawaii to confirm the authenticity of what they and Taitz submitted, under the statute cited above, and have now submitted Hawaii’s original paper documentary response with signature and seal to the Court.

What counsel for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee submitted is very similar to the document provided by Hawaii to State of Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett. The difference, besides the full-color copy included in the documentation, is the fact that this verification, described by the defense as “self-authenticating,” is now before a federal district court.

Attorneys Begley and Tepper wrote:

The Hawaii Verification, which (a) contains the seal of the Hawaii State Department of Health (an agency of a state of the United States), and (b) was executed via signature and initials by Dr. Onaka, is self-authenticating pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 902. Moreover, the Hawaii DOH Verification is not subject to the hearsay rule pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803 (9). That Dr. Onaka is the Hawaii State Registrar with authority to provide information regarding vital records on file with the Hawaii Department of Health is an undisputed fact.

and

The Hawaii verification provides official confirmation that the “information” – i.e., each and every vital fact of President Obama’s birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov – is the same information contained in his original LFBC on file with the [D]epartment. As such, the Hawaii Verification – with under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-14.3 (b) “shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and the facts of the event are as stated by the application” – clearly establishes the veracity of the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov and confirms that no fraud occurred either in the posting of the document on whitehouse.gov or in MDEC Counsel’s submission of a copy of the LFBC as an exhibit in these proceedings.

Anyone with the ability to read knows that the Hawaii Department of Health has verified the place of President Obama’s birth over and over again, starting in 2008, and in that sense nothing is new. Still this is the first time an official verification is before a court hearing an Obama eligibility case and it means that in every future birther lawsuit calling into question Obama’s place of birth the defense can request this same verification from Hawaii, or at least request judicial notice of its being provided already in Mississippi federal court. Birthers can claim the White House faked the document, but a similar claim against a state agency is going to fall flat in a court of law.

Maybe it’s time for the referee to blow the whistle for “piling on.”

2012-06-06 – MDEC Motion to Supplement Response to Motion for Sanctions (S.D. Miss.)

Print Friendly

, , ,

99 Responses to Official Hawaiian birth certification appears in court

  1. avatar
    bovril June 6, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    h/t to Realist at the Fogbow…ANOTHER one botes teh big one…

    Sibley v Obama with the classic line…

    For the reasons described below, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motions. The Court will also grant defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to each of plaintiff’s myriad unmeritorious claims. As Chief Judge Lamberth recently stated with respect to a similar suit, “[t]his Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills.” Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (2011)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96163811/DC-SIBLEY-2012-06-06-ORDER-Disposing-of-Multiple-Motions

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96164213/DC-SIBLEY-2012-06-06-OPINION-Dismissing-Case

  2. avatar
    G June 6, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    SWEET!!! :)

    bovril: Tangential but proof of a. Orly’s touch converts gold to cackb. Competent lawyer she ain’tc. The law of unintended consequences.I give you…….http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-MissAn official, signed and verified document, as part of Orly’s craptastic Mississippi ballot challenge, from Hawai’i stating that ALL the data shown and presented on the BC at the Whitehouse site is the same as the original. In other worlds all the garbage in Birferstan and particularly from Orly and them like Bitterdezillion (sic) that the BC is a fake and the HAwai’i DoH has never “verified” the BC is….well cack…..And you know how this lovely little document turned up…? Mad Ole Orly tried to say that the opposing council, in her fail whale of a case, were trying to perpetrate a fraud on the court and demanding sanctions. This gave the opposing counsel the justification to request the verification which the nice folks in Hawai’i did. Don’t ya just love it when a plan comes together…. 8-)

  3. avatar
    JPotter June 6, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    bovril: An official, signed and verified document, as part of Orly’s craptastic Mississippi ballot challenge, from Hawai’i stating that ALL the data shown and presented on the BC at the Whitehouse site is the same as the original.

    Gosh, that looks suspiciously familiar to what Bennett (AZ SoS), same letterhead, overall format, same sign and initial.

    I predict birther objections will be along the lines of either: 1) it doesn’t read exactly the same as what Bennett supposedly received, or 2) they just copied and pasted what obama’s flunkie sent’em!

    It’s a guaranteed facepalm either way.

    But yes, Orly’s self-immolation is impressive. If you keep asking for it ….

  4. avatar
    y_p_w June 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    bovril: I give you…….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss

    An official, signed and verified document, as part of Orly’s craptastic Mississippi ballot challenge, from Hawai’i stating that ALL the data shown and presented on the BC at the Whitehouse site is the same as the original.

    I noticed a different notation next to Onaka’s signature. The signature is identical to the Bennett verification’s, which tells me that it’s of course a reproduction like the kind that most offices use. I have a college transcript where the certification signture looks like a photocopy of the registrar signature. I’m guessing the notation on the right is used to identify who prepared the verification

    Also, this is the clearest I’ve seen of the embossed seal of the Hawaii DOH. This is definitely not the stylized version that we’ve seen before. It’s also so deeply embossed that the paper around the seal has wrinkled.

    I was part of a discussion with some birther who insisted there was something wrong with the verification sent to Bennett and that it wasn’t a real verification that they have an Obama birth certificate on file. In particular, this person claimed that the lack of the date of birth was an indication that Hawaii wasn’t actually verifying Obama’s birth rather than the simple fact that Bennett never bothered to ask for DOB. Strangely enough, I recall that the email chain between Bennett and the Hawaii DOH never actually supplied the place of birth, but that Hawaii DOH volunteered it in that verification.

  5. avatar
    Jim June 6, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    Sef: Looks like ATO to me. Probably Alvin, himself.

    I wonder if maybe he wasn’t more careful in initialing this verification since there were so many questions about who “JK” was that initialed Bennett’s. Really, the signatures we see on documents all the time in these cases, you wouldn’t recognize some of them if their name wasn’t right under it!

  6. avatar
    john June 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    According to Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up. Arpaio’s team is compiling all of the information they uncovered during their week in Hawaii and is preparing a 2nd press conference to report on it towards the end of June.

    Read Butterdezillion’s post for the truth. She has been the expert on the dealings with Hawaii DOH.
    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hi-non-verification-1.pdf

    Butterdezillion has said she tried to send all her analysis and research to Arpaio’s team for analysis. Arpaio’s team will now use Butter’s information along witht he information they gathered from their week in Hawaii to come up with the truth.

  7. avatar
    donna June 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    so the spin will be ……………………….?

    i can hardly wait, doc

    your next topic should be a contest to fill in the blank

  8. avatar
    MN-Skeptic June 6, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Apuzzo’s already dismissed it, stating “That verification, as probative evidence, is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” He goes on to state seven issues it, then says that he needs to see the original microfilm along with “medical records pre-natal, natal, and post-natal, for both Stanley Ann Dunham and ‘Barack Obama.'” You can read his idiocy at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/purpura-and-moran-file-their-brief-and.html?commentPage=2 It was posted at 6:58PM today.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    Bz has a great track record of taking straightforward statements and arguing that they mean the opposite of what they say. This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for the Cold Case Posse.

    john: Read Butterdezillion’s post for the truth. She has been the expert on the dealings with Hawaii DOH.

  10. avatar
    donna June 6, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    my suggestion is that hawaii says to the ditz “we’ll show you ALL of the records …… every scrap …… but then WE’LL HAVE TO KILL YOU”

    HOPEFULLY, she will BITE

  11. avatar
    gorefan June 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: Apuzzo’s already dismissed it,

    He’s talking about the verification for Bennett. This one has a seal and is initialed by Dr. Onaka. Mario has reading comprehension problems.

    Further down on the page he post the following:

    “I found this interesting piece of information. In looking through the laws of Virginia in this text,…. This is what is said concerning the requirements to be President: “The president to be natural born, a citizen in 1788, age 35; and 14 years a resident of the United States.””

    He then goes on to explain how this confirms his cockamamie theories.

    Except he has misquoted the piece. It really says “The president to be natural born, or a citizen in 1788, age 35; and 14 years a resident …”

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=6534830423328518836&page=2&token=1339024256989

  12. avatar
    richCares June 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    “Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up. ”
    sure john, sure, keep telling your self that, but increase your meds

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    Essentially Apuzzo isn’t paying attention to the comment he responded to because he talked about the Arizona verification, not the Mississippi verification. His comments from there on are nonsense in relationship to Mississippi.

    Apuzzo is in denial.

    MN-Skeptic: Apuzzo’s already dismissed it, stating “That verification, as probative evidence, is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” He goes on to state seven issues,

  14. avatar
    Thinker June 6, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    Doc: Begley and Tepper are not Obama’s lawyers. They represent the Mississippi Democratic Party.

  15. avatar
    gorefan June 6, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    “The difference, besides the full-color copy included in the documentation..”

    I’m confused, was the color copy of the LFBC made by Dr. Onaka from the whitehouse website or is it something that was sent to him by Attorneys Begley and Tepper?

  16. avatar
    Sean June 6, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Maybe this is from ANOTHER Barack Obama born on the same day and place.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    Sorry, I know better. Got in a hurry. Fixed now.

    Thinker: Doc: Begley and Tepper are not Obama’s lawyers. They represent the Mississippi Democratic Party.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    I read it as from Begley and Tepper.

    gorefan: I’m confused, was the color copy of the LFBC made by Dr. Onaka from the whitehouse website or is it something that was sent to him by Attorneys Begley and Tepper?

  19. avatar
    gorefan June 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I read it as from Begley and Tepper

    Right, I see what confused me was that Dr. Onaka was repeating what Begley and Tepper wrote in their letter. But the phrasing sounded unusual.

    T and B: “… a copy of which is attached to this request,”

    Dr. O: “… a copy of which is attached with your request”

    So really he is not attaching a copy, he is returning their copy.

  20. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    Thanks, Doc, for referencing football penalties, lead me to:

    The Palpably Unfair Act

    What a fun concept!

    The things you learn while rebuffing the birf. And someone asked why we’re still here!

  21. avatar
    nbc June 7, 2012 at 1:28 am #

    MN-Skeptic: Apuzzo’s already dismissed it, stating “That verification, as probative evidence, is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” He goes on to state seven issues it, then says that he needs to see the original microfilm along with “medical records pre-natal, natal, and post-natal, for both Stanley Ann Dunham and ‘Barack Obama.’” You can read his idiocy at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/purpura-and-moran-file-their-brief-and.html?commentPage=2

    Well, I guess he has abandoned his two US citizen follies? Well, as his ideas have failed in about 8 courts or hearings, including two in which he was counsel, it should not come as a surprise to me that Mario fails to comprehend the rules of evidence here.

  22. avatar
    BillTheCat June 7, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    john:
    According to Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up. Arpaio’s team is compiling all of the information they uncovered during their week in Hawaii and is preparing a 2nd press conference to report on it towards the end of June.

    Read Butterdezillion’s post for the truth. She has been the expert on the dealings with Hawaii DOH.
    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hi-non-verification-1.pdf

    Butterdezillion has said she tried to send all her analysis and research to Arpaio’s team for analysis. Arpaio’s team will now use Butter’s information along witht he information they gathered from their week in Hawaii to come up with the truth.

    What a total crock of crap. Butter is a lunatic, and congrats using her as any sort of authority on the matter – your credibility is showing.

    No one cares what Sherriff Joe thinks, and besides, he will soon have his bloody hands full when he faces the DoJ in court.

  23. avatar
    richCares June 7, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    Sheriff Joe don’t like this, not one bit. He resents his proof being sent to the toilet. send him your condolences (sign it from john)

  24. avatar
    James M June 7, 2012 at 2:17 am #

    Correct use of “myriad” brought a tear to my eye.

  25. avatar
    y_p_w June 7, 2012 at 2:23 am #

    JPotter:
    Thanks, Doc, for referencing football penalties, lead me to:

    The Palpably Unfair Act

    What a fun concept!

    The things you learn while rebuffing the birf. And someone asked why we’re still here!

    There have been a few cases in college football where this has been used to grant a touchdown. Usually it’s been when someone was streaking in down the sideline for a score when an opponent entered the field of play and tackled a player. I’ve even heard of a coach doing this.

    The one well known play that could have drawn this penalty was the final kickoff in the 1982 game between Cal and Stanford. The ref said that he would have likely simply awarded Cal a touchdown because of all the Stanford Band members who had entered onto the field, which interfered with the progress of the players and could have resulted in one being tackled.

    I don’t know if these examples somehow relate to birther activity. I’m thinking there might be some sort of analogy here.

  26. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 2:36 am #

    y_p_w: I don’t know if these examples somehow relate to birther activity. I’m thinking there might be some sort of analogy here.

    I think it’s that they dream of committing Palpably Unfair Acts, but are far too incompetent to figure out how to pull one off.

    For instance, Orly would love a chance to eat Obama’s original BC, but has no clue how to gain access to the archives in Hawaii.

    CorsiFarah and Team WND would love to tackle Obama from the sidelines with an October surprise, but every gambit they roll out blows up in their faces. Instead of generating horror, shock, and outrage, thy give us unintentional comedy, time and time again.

    i know the Mythbusters polished actual turds. Conceptual turds are a whole different ball game. When you’re Wrong, you’re just plain Wrong.

  27. avatar
    aarrgghh June 7, 2012 at 3:28 am #

    MN-Skeptic: Apuzzo’s already dismissed it, stating “That verification, as probative evidence, is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” He goes on to state seven issues it, then says that he needs to see the original microfilm along with “medical records pre-natal, natal, and post-natal, for both Stanley Ann Dunham and ‘Barack Obama.’”

    ok, we’ve clearly now entered theological territory: can god create a goalpost that a birfer couldn’t move?

  28. avatar
    Paper June 7, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    Hey congratulations! Now we can stop talking about nonexistent forgeries, right? And just move on to hardcore conspiracy and fraud, yes? Lovely. About time. Takes you guys forever. Can’t wait to hear Sheriff Arpaio say he no longer thinks the PDF is a forgery, and stop talking about *if* a crime has been committed. I am so confident in Sheriff Arpaio I am even holding my breath. Not to worry, though, I can hold it a long time. I know the Sheriff has real important work to do.

    john:
    According to Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up. Arpaio’s team is compiling all of the information they uncovered during their week in Hawaii and is preparing a 2nd press conference to report on it towards the end of June.

  29. avatar
    mheuss June 7, 2012 at 6:38 am #

    I present a birther’s thought process:

    This almost, almost makes it appear that Hawaii’s previous confirmations of the president’s data weren’t secret coded messages trying to tell fellow patriots that the opposite of what they were “affirming” was actually true.

    Have their confirmations that he was born in hawaii truly meant just that? Have the verification’s that the president’s father was truly named – of all unlikely things – Barack Obama been actually accurate? Instead of the much more likely Frank Marshall – whom I had never heard of before some random guy on the internet claimed that most black guys look alike?

    Could it be we birthers were….. wrong? Well, not wrong, but duped by the president’s chicago mafia machine? Into thinking he was an illegal alien, when he really wasn’t? Was this just like the third grade – another long, 4 year plot to make us look stupid?

    That makes no sense! I mean, if you take the words natural born, and take the N from natural, the o and n from born – you have NON. Couple that with citizen – you have non citizen. That is absolute proof that hawaii is trying to tell us something. A cry for help. I don’t know what the remaining atural and r are doing in there – but with those letters you can spell…. torula – which is probably a fancy kenyan tortilla.

    And clearly, the paper is wrinkled like it was done in photoshop. A scanner would have flattened that wrinkle. Clearly forged! And onaka is an anagram for A KONA- and everyone knows kona is a hawaiian coffee. Clearly coffee can’t authenticate a document- so even if the seal is real, it doesn’t count.

    Since obama has spent nearly a trillion dollars covering this up, there has to be something to it. Why else would they have killed Brietbart?

  30. avatar
    Northland10 June 7, 2012 at 6:48 am #

    aarrgghh: ok, we’ve clearly now entered theological territory: can god create a goalpost that a birfer couldn’t move?

    The goalposts never actually moved. The Birthers only think they are standing with them in Lake Michigan, when, in reality, the Birthers are still wandering around Ryan/Dyche Stadium.

  31. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    aarrgghh: ok, we’ve clearly now entered theological territory: can god create a goalpost that a birfer couldn’t move?

    To an atheist, ‘god’ is a pronoun, so the answer is ‘no’. Made by man, can be moved by man. All it takes is denial, and denial is free.

    Northland10: The goalposts never actually moved.The Birthers only think they are standing with them in Lake Michigan, when, in reality, the Birthers are still wandering around Ryan/Dyche Stadium.

    Ah, so it’s a question of perception! The *real* goalpost remains the same (I think we can all agree on that …. legal standards remain unchanged, Constitution hasn’t been amended lately). The Birthers hop from lilypad to lilypad as expedience demands. After hopping, they look back, and the goalpost looks different (angles, lighting has changed), and make the childlike assumption that the goalpost has been altered … or it’s a completely new goalpost!

    No wonder everyday is so new for them.

  32. avatar
    Keith June 7, 2012 at 8:21 am #

    mheuss: and everyone knows kona is a hawaiian coffee.

    See that’s where everybody is going wrong!

    Kona is an Hawai’ian smoking herb! High quality and much sought after.

    Smoke a bit of Kona and everything gets real. Like really real, dig it? Seriously, breathtakingly, kick ass real.

    fffffffffffffffftttt!. didn’tsomeoneherewanttoknowwhat’ffft’meant?nevergotnearsomegoodkonaobviouslyoryou’d… wwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhh! know what it was. You know what I mean?

  33. avatar
    lani June 7, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    No. Kona coffee is trademarked
    protected. Coffee must be at least 10% to claim to be Kona coffee. You are confusing. The popular Maui wowie with Kona products

  34. avatar
    Thrifty June 7, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    Totally fake. I can see the layers.

    Wait… this is a month without the letter ‘r’ in it.

    What I meant to say was, totally fake, not enough layers.

  35. avatar
    Thrifty June 7, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    Predictably, when evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory is introduced, the conspiracy is simply expanded to say those providing the evidence are in on it.

    John, if the people in Hawaii are in on it, why would there be a forgery? They can issue as many genuine birth certificates as they want. Barack Obama, had he been born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, wouldn’t need to go to all the trouble of putting together a forged BC. He could just go up to his buddies in the Hawaii Department of Health and say “Hey guys, I wanna run for president but wasn’t born in the United States so I’m not eligible. Can you print me up a birth certificate saying I was?”

    john: According to Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up. Arpaio’s team is compiling all of the information they uncovered during their week in Hawaii and is preparing a 2nd press conference to report on it towards the end of June.

  36. avatar
    Thrifty June 7, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    I predict no spin at all. Birthers will just pretend this never happened.

    donna:
    so the spin will be ……………………….?

    i can hardly wait, doc

    your next topic should be a contest to fill in the blank

  37. avatar
    Thrifty June 7, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    I wish Pepsi Kona was still available. It was a terrible idea for a product, and I probably wouldn’t drink it on a regular basis, but I would love to just get one more can.

  38. avatar
    misha June 7, 2012 at 9:16 am #

    john: According to Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up. Arpaio’s team is compiling all of the information they uncovered during their week in Hawaii and is preparing a 2nd press conference to report on it towards the end of June.

    So when is he going to present this to a grand jury, instead of yammering to a press pool?

    “Arpaio’s team is compiling all of the information they uncovered during their week in Hawaii”

    I want to see the placenta, or no dice.

  39. avatar
    clestes June 7, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    Sorry to be behind the rest of you folks on this. I do work for a living and sometimes I just don’t have the time to spend following the myriad ins and outs of the birther non-logic.

    So, Orly introduced a fake BC and the defense entered a real verified BC, Orly got mad and demanded sanctions for the defense introducing a legit document it opened the door for the HI dept of Vital records to release into court records the actual paper copy of the president’s BC??

    You mean that stupid woman didn’t realize that this was a possibility of her actions?? Well, now the birthers are truly well cooked. Trying to discredit the real paper deal is going to be beyond them. Oh, I am sure they will try and find some bizarre reason that this paper with the seal and the signatures must be a fake, but whatever small credibility they had with the independent crowd is lost.

    Birthers everywhere must be gnashing their teeth over this. When it was a copy on the web, it might have had some chance of being called into question but at this point that is no longer possible.

  40. avatar
    donna June 7, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    the latest from wing nutzzz daily:

    CNN ‘FALSIFIES’ Evidence To Prove OBAMA’s BIRTH

  41. avatar
    James M June 7, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    clestes:
    Sorry to be behind the rest of you folks on this. I do work for a living and sometimes I just don’t have the time to spend following the myriad ins and outs of the birther non-logic.

    So, Orly introduced a fake BC and the defense entered a real verified BC, Orly got mad and demanded sanctions for the defense introducing a legit document it opened the door for the HI dept of Vital records to release into court records the actual paper copy of the president’s BC??

    You mean that stupid woman didn’t realize that this was a possibility of her actions?? Well, now the birthers are truly well cooked. Trying to discredit the real paper deal is going to be beyond them. Oh, I am sure they will try and find some bizarre reason that this paper with the seal and the signatures must be a fake, but whatever small credibility they had with the independent crowd is lost.

    Birthers everywhere must be gnashing their teeth over this. When it was a copy on the web, it might have had some chance of being called into question but at this point that is no longer possible.

    The main line of the birther attack moved a long time ago away from either “born abroad” or “HI birth certificate a forgery”, and toward “non-citizen parent means disqualification.”

    The birthers can and often do claim that the HI BC supports their argument because it proves that President Obama’s father was not a US Citizen, and therefore by the two-citizen-parent rule in the birther version of the Constitution, President Obama is ineligible. So in this case Orly has lost nothing — she has provided yet another tool for Obama’s frog-march out of the White House, which is sure to come about Any Day Now.

  42. avatar
    Scientist June 7, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    James M: The birthers can and often do claim that the HI BC supports their argument because it proves that President Obama’s father was not a US Citizen, and therefore by the two-citizen-parent rule in the birther version of the Constitution, President Obama is ineligible.

    It actually shows exactly what Mitt Romney’s shows, a father born in a foreign country, and says nothing about whether that father was or was not a citizen.

    I think the smarter birthers (perhaps an oxymoron) realize that the non-citizen parent argument has little resonance with the general public, especially since there are millions of US born citizen voters who had a parent or 2 who had not naturalized and never dreamed that meant they couldn’t be President. That’s not a great message to take into an election.

    No, where I think they are going, is to try to portray the President as a liar and a crook (even if an eligible liar and crook). He forged an electronic file-never mind that all the information on it is correct (and so why would he forge it?). He has phony SSNs and a phony draft registration (even though those have nothing to do with eligibillty).

    The courtroom shenanigans are purely a sideshow-the real game is in the political arena. Of course, unfortunately for the birthers (and fortunately for everybody else), the courtroom losses have grievously wounded their political arguments.

  43. avatar
    richCares June 7, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Dov, your Doc’s Law on the CNN story was propethic
    See WND’s story titled “CNN ‘BIRTHER BUSTER’ REPORT ‘PERPETRATES FRAUD”
    No story yet on MS Verification.
    WND has a long way to go before equaling “The Onion”

  44. avatar
    Jim F June 7, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    I have suspected something for a long time and now that I have taken up taken up John’s suggestion that I read Butter… blog on the BC I am now certion of it. John is just having a laugh. There is just no way that anyone who is capable of rational thought could be that dense. Now I know that some of you will say that he is not capable of rational thought but that would be unkind. After all I had a parrot who would not have been fooled by this stuff. The parrot had a brain about the size of a small grape and he would have had no difficulty in understanding where Obama was born if I had spent 2 or 3 minutes explaining it to him.

  45. avatar
    clestes June 7, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    James M

    Sorry to inform you of this but the 2 citizen parent rule is a non-issue. Birthers dragged this up in 2009 or 2010. Every single court case and most Americans realize that being born in this country makes one a NBC. The only way the president is going to leave the WH is by being voted out and it won’t be because of these silly side issues.

    Birthers are behaving schizoidphrenic here. First it was the BC was a fake. Then it was it takes 2 citizens parents. Now it is back to the BC is a fake, which is going to be impossible to prove in a court of law.

    Really they are going down in flames here. Don’t you get it?? The courts have consistantly ruled in over 120 cases that there is no question of the validity of the president’s eligibility. Now you might think that is going to sway the millions of center voters, but it won’t. They have a lot more common sense than you birthers and they are much more likely to think that there is no case when over 120 different judges all come to the same conclusion, NO CASE. Birthers dream of a wide ranging conspiracy. Most people just accept the sensible conclusion that there is no case.

    Orly has proven to be worse than a burden to birthers. Not only is she a fool of a lawyer, she has managed to single handedly shoot the birther line of arguements down in court. It has gotten so bad that not a single birther lawyer can file a case without it being dismissed. Pretty soon, they won’t even be able to file a case.

    Conspiracists will yell about how corrupt the judicial system is but really, after so many losses, judges just don’t want to waste their time.

  46. avatar
    Keith June 7, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    lani: You are confusing. The popular Maui wowie with Kona products

    Nope. I am referring to Kona Gold. Maui Wowie is different 8-)

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    I don’t think Orly’s actions uniquely opened the possibility of getting the verification. The defense could have, on its own, obtained the birth certificate from the Internet, entered it, and then asked for a verification. Any case alleging vital records fraud on the part of President Obama and the White house should be open to the same verification argument.

    This verification has always been available to defendants in birther lawsuits, but up until now the defense strategy in the cases has been to get them dismissed with as little fuss as possible. In Mississippi the defense is taking a much more aggressive stance and I think they are trying to do as much damage to Taitz and the birthers as they can while remaining within a legitimate defense of the instant case.

    Personally, I think this verification makes the birthers look ridiculous.

    clestes: You mean that stupid woman didn’t realize that this was a possibility of her actions?? Well, now the birthers are truly well cooked

  48. avatar
    Jim June 7, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Personally, I think this verification makes the birthers look ridiculous.

    Not like they needed a lot of help. It seems that MS is looking to put a MAJOR beatdown to the BM. I hope they get sanctions, at least expenses. As much as they’ve filed in this case…I’m sure the billable hour$ are piling up! =D>

  49. avatar
    Scientist June 7, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Personally, I think this verification makes the birthers look ridiculous.

    Can you name anything they have done in the last 4 years that hasn’t made them look ridiculous?

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    The thing I love about birthers is that every day they appear ridiculous in a fresh new way.

    Scientist: Can you name anything they have done in the last 4 years that hasn’t made them look ridiculous?

  51. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Scientist: Can you name anything they have done in the last 4 years that hasn’t made them look ridiculous?

    When you proceed from a hand-picked, tailor-made conclusion about something utterly beyond your control, that tends to happen. Time flows one way, and the birthers have been marching backwards, thinking they’re heading upstream. Try to walk backwards w/o looking ridiculous.

    As their basic premise is backwards, it follows everything about them will be inverted, even what they manage to produce. And indeed, they have been loading the scales to their disadvantage over time. The harder they try, the farther out of reach their goals are pushed.

    This description only applies to those nutty enough to actually be seeking their stated ends … The True Believers. They are unwittingly ridiculous. For the shills, it’s only ever about the means. Those bloodsuckers. They choose to be ridiculous.

  52. avatar
    richCares June 7, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    What about me, what does this verification mean to me, I stand to lose a lot of money. I have been selling frogs (for the marching) on birther web sites. I offered them at $1.00 each or 2 for $3.00, Most birthers opted for the 2 for $3.00. Now what I am gonna do! Now I have to concentrate on developing “BirtherMingle.com”, so far only Orly Taitz has signed up. I need to get a paypal button!

  53. avatar
    donna June 7, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    “The True Believers” and don’t forget the TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS

    i could have served in every war and lost my four limbs while serving but, because i am NOT a birther (who didn’t serve ORLY) , i can NEVER BE considered a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT …… a constitution fighter

    INSTEAD, i’m a “commie”

  54. avatar
    Jim June 7, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    richCares:
    What about me, what does this verification mean to me, I stand to lose a lot of money. I have been selling frogs (for the marching) on birther web sites. I offered them at $1.00 each or 2 for $3.00, Most birthers opted for the 2 for $3.00.Now what I am gonna do! Now I have to concentrate on developing “BirtherMingle.com”, so far only Orly Taitz has signed up. I need to get a paypal button!

    I hear that frog’s legs are a delicacy in MS, maybe you could send them down to B&T for a celebratory meal. Or maybe Orly would like them…can they use a paypal button? :D

  55. avatar
    y_p_w June 7, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t think Orly’s actions uniquely opened the possibility of getting the verification. The defense could have, on its own, obtained the birth certificate from the Internet, entered it, and then asked for a verification. Any case alleging vital records fraud on the part of President Obama and the White house should be open to the same verification argument.

    I think Orly herself could have made a pretty much identical request in the Georgia case, but she tried swinging for the fences rather than trying to draw a walk. I’m pretty sure that someone here might have mentioned the verification in lieu of a certified copy during the Georgia case.

  56. avatar
    Thrifty June 7, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    Are you (gerund form of popular expletive deleted) kidding me? Prenatal, natal, and postnatal records? Who keeps that crap? Don’t we have birth certificates administered by state agencies so that we don’t have to keep all this garbage around for 50 years to prove birth?

    MN-Skeptic:
    Apuzzo’s already dismissed it, stating “That verification, as probative evidence, is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” He goes on to state seven issues it, then says that he needs to see the original microfilm along with “medical records pre-natal, natal, and post-natal, for both Stanley Ann Dunham and ‘Barack Obama.’” You can read his idiocy at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/purpura-and-moran-file-their-brief-and.html?commentPage=2It was posted at 6:58PM today.

  57. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    richCares: What about me, what does this verification mean to me, I stand to lose a lot of money. I have been selling frogs (for the marching) on birther web sites. I offered them at $1.00 each or 2 for $3.00, Most birthers opted for the 2 for $3.00. Now what I am gonna do! Now I have to concentrate on developing “BirtherMingle.com”, so far only Orly Taitz has signed up. I need to get a paypal button!

    No effect at all. The birthers are just as gullible as they ever were (remember, they don’t believe in evolution!). Just tell’em the verification is a sign of increasing desperation. just point out that the HDOH just copy/pasted what the MS Blues asked them to verify. They’ll eat that up.

  58. avatar
    richCares June 7, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    ” (remember, they don’t believe in evolution)”
    Yah, that’s right, WND debunks evolution plus they offer proof of Noah’s flood.
    Their primary theme is to enhance the value of stupidity!
    every story on WND has a pay pal click, I should try that!

  59. avatar
    jayHG June 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    Jim F: I have suspected something for a long time and now that I have taken up taken up John’s suggestion that I read Butter… blog on the BC I am now certion of it. John is just having a laugh. There is just no way that anyone who is capable of rational thought could be that dense. Now I know that some of you will say that he is not capable of rational thought but that would be unkind. After all I had a parrot who would not have been fooled by this stuff. The parrot had a brain about the size of a small grape and he would have had no difficulty in understanding where Obama was born if I had spent 2 or 3 minutes explaining it to him.

    I’m inclined to agree. John comes in, armed with wild musings, then sits back and get attention. His musing are getting a little wilder cause folks are starting to either ignore him or make fun of him (I usually do the latter).

    He reminds me of Sven who comes in over at free republic, says that President Obama has records with something association of Connecticut, the U. S. Department has his naturalization records and that is the whole darn truth. This is the only post he will make. He then sits back and reads folks ask for sources and so on.

    So as I said, I tend to agree with you that John/Sven is having a little laugh. I say more power to him….whatever gets you through the day, right John???

  60. avatar
    jayHG June 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    I missed the editing window of my post and see some mistakes……I hate when that happens. Oh well……it’s morning and I’ve only had half my coffee……

  61. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    richCares: Now I have to concentrate on developing “BirtherMingle.com”

    Fabulous ideas RichCares! How about an educational dot com demonstrating to future generations why the legitimate study of , peer-reviewed, academic-based History is so important when political movements arise bent on bending history to their own devices?

    You could call it, “BirtherMangle.duh”

  62. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    donna: i can NEVER BE considered a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT …… a constitution fighter INSTEAD, i’m a “commie”

    You pledge your allegiance to the Comstitution?

  63. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 7, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    aarrgghh: ok, we’ve clearly now entered theological territory: can god create a goalpost that a birfer couldn’t move?

    If the god were Cthulhu, he would just eat any birfoon trying to move his goalpost.

  64. avatar
    James M June 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    john: According to Sheriff Arpaio’s team, they apparently have determined that Hawaii is purpratrating a cover up

    I can identify the forger and several individuals involved in the coverup of the forgery.

    When you can show me a criminal indictment against one or more of these individuals, we can begin discuss it.

    Why have no criminal charges been filed? Nobody but me seems to even suggest that this is the appropriate course of action. I have asked you this question before, at least twice. Why are we talking about civil suits and unofficial investigations? Supposedly you have evidence of a crime, but you aren’t taking that evidence to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and testifying. You aren’t doing that, Sheriff Joe isn’t doing that, and nobody else is doing that.

    There is no forgery, and there won’t be, until someone is accused, tried and convicted of this supposed crime of forgery.

  65. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 7, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Personally, I think this verification makes the birthers look [more] ridiculous.

    FIFY

  66. avatar
    jayHG June 7, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    I had never gone over there before because I felt it was likely pointless, and I was right. I’m talking about Arpuzzo’s (spelled wrong on purpose cause everything about this nut is wrong, so I might as well continue the tradition) blog, as it were.

    In a words, he’s a full fledged nut and I can’t believe he graduated from anyone’s law school. He twists and turns his birfer logic in ways that I haven’t seen anywhere, even over at the land of crazy, free republic. Mr. Woodman routinely tears him a new one, but it’s all for naught. He twists and turns and pretend that up is down and black is white (actually, when they look at President Obama, they just WISH black was white).

  67. avatar
    G June 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    ;)

    LMAO!!!

    Joe Acerbic: If the god were Cthulhu, he would just eat any birfoon trying to move his goalpost.

  68. avatar
    James M June 7, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: If the god were Cthulhu, he would just eat any birfoon trying to move his goalpost.

    This is one of those cultural references that my hyper-educated and edgy friends seemed to “just know about” but I managed to never encountered myself.

  69. avatar
    Keith June 7, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    JPotter:
    Thanks, Doc, for referencing football penalties, lead me to:

    The Palpably Unfair Act

    What a fun concept!

    The things you learn while rebuffing the birf. And someone asked why we’re still here!

    1999 NRL Grand Final: St. George-Illawarra Dragons v Melbourne Storm

    Storm trail the entire game, but narrow the gap to 14-18 with 15 minutes left to play. Desparation prevails on both sides until the final three minutes…

    The Dragons’ defence had held resolute until the Storm forced a goalline dropout in the 77th minute, setting up a final three minutes of high drama.

    Melbourne worked the ball deep into the opposition 20 before Kimmorley – who would later claim the Clive Churchill Medal – sent a precise cross-field bomb towards the right wing of Smith.

    As Smith dove into the in-goal and caught the ball he was struck by a swinging arm from Dragons winger Jamie Ainscough, in a desperate bid to prevent the try.

    Match referee Bill Harrigan consulted his touch judges and Storm fans fell into uproar as video replays showed Smith had dropped the ball only after being knocked unconscious by the late hit.

    Harrigan referred the incident upstairs for Ward to rule on a possible penalty try. After viewing the replay several times, he was left with no choice but to grant the Storm’s premiership dream and to terminate the Dragons’.

    Geyer slotted the conversion attempt – taken from in front for a penalty try – which put the Storm in front for the first time in the match, in the 78th minute.

    In a performance that Harry Houdini would have been proud of, Melbourne prevailed 20-18, ensuring the premiership trophy would cross over the NSW border into Victoria for the first time.

    That “palpably unfair act” (knocking the head off Craig Smith) decided the Grand Final.

  70. avatar
    Keith June 7, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    y_p_w: Usually it’s been when someone was streaking in down the sideline for a score when an opponent entered the field of play and tackled a player.

    Happened in a Bowl game, Cotton Bowl, I think. Might have been an Alabama player?

  71. avatar
    JPotter June 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: If the god were Cthulhu, he would just eat any birfoon trying to move his goalpost.

    LOL! Indeed. I just got a lovely new edition of Lovecraft. It’s been awhile. Looking forward to the ride. Our comfy existence makes the birf possible. I think the birthers would have other business to attend to at the Mountains of Madness. Like wishing they hadn’t given away their mind so easily!

  72. avatar
    John Reilly June 8, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    I believe the Jets got caught a few years ago crowding the sidelines to block opposing players, and I think Woody Hayes punched out an opposing player and was fired because of it.

  73. avatar
    y_p_w June 8, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    Keith: Happened in a Bowl game, Cotton Bowl, I think. Might have been an Alabama player?

    Rice vs Alabama in the 1954 Cotton Bowl.

    Here’s an interesting discussion (OT of course, but it’s started):

    http://www.ifanxp.com/palpably-unfair-act-761

    Other than the 1954 Cotton Bowl, this guy has heard of it being enforced in a game between Navy and the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. He gives examples of cases where it was almost enforced, such as when a player intercepted a ball and an opponent made a motion as if he was trying to trip the player. Once a coach went onto the field and feigned a motion like he was going to punch an opponent. I think in these cases the player scored, but had these acts been effective in preventing the player from scoring, the officials could have conferred and awarded the score anyways. They also mention the NY Jets coach who tripped an opposing player going down the sideline. That didn’t necessarily prevent a score and I don’t recall what the penalty was during the game.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5915776

    I think baseball and softball have similar rules to make certain things equitable. Once in a HS PE softball game I ended up with a triple. The other side didn’t think I could hit the ball the other way and played a shift even in the outfield. However, one of the other team’s player decided to block me, forcing me to go around and slowing me down. The PE teacher saw this and awarded me another base. I think this would fit the definition of a “palpably unfair act”. I think other sports have similar rules. I could imagine someone taking a penalty kick in soccer getting blocked by an opponent streaking into the penalty box.

  74. avatar
    G June 8, 2012 at 5:00 am #

    I’ve been a fan of H.P. Lovecraft for about 25 years. I have nearly every story he has every written as well as many of his contemporary associates writings within his fictional “universe”. :)

    James M: This is one of those cultural references that my hyper-educated and edgy friends seemed to “just know about” but I managed to never encountered myself.

  75. avatar
    The Magic M June 8, 2012 at 5:59 am #

    y_p_w: I could imagine someone taking a penalty kick in soccer getting blocked by an opponent streaking into the penalty box.

    I’ve never heard of any such decision, or an equivalent of the PUA in the rules, in soccer.

    In fact, I think the rules make it impossible to award a goal unless the ball actually entered the goal (i.e. fully passed the goal line between the goal posts).
    Interference of any kind would be punished, but still no goal awarded.
    I think I even remember an occasion where a goal was averted by a fan running onto the field and kicking away the ball that was rolling towards the empty goal. There was no goal awarded. That is because by soccer rules, anyone except the players is regarded as non-existant (for the same reason, if the ball bounces off the referee and goes in, it’s a goal; I don’t know what would happen if a fan, or a non-legal player, scored a goal before the referee stops the match).

    In the case you describe, the interfering player would be ejected and the penalty repeated.

    I can however imagine one possible exception:
    In competitions like the Champions League, there are two-game playoffs with an aggregate score rule. Also, there is a rule that if a team has less than 8 players on the field, the game is stopped and awarded as 2-0 to the other team.
    So what happens if you win the first leg 3-0 and then, trailing 0-2 by halftime and fearing elimination, 4 players intentionally get ejected to have the game score fixed at 0-2, taking an overall 3-2 win? This never happened, but I think the officials would not allow this loophole to be exploited.

  76. avatar
    Jim F June 8, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    In Rugby Union there is an often used rule whereby a referee can award a touchdown/try if he is satisfied that a score would have resulted if the infringement had not occurred. Just today England were awarded a penalty try against Ireland in the Junior World Cup when a player deliberately went offside in order to prevent a score.

  77. avatar
    Andrew Rei June 11, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    Regarding the “Birtherism” BS:
    What Orly Taitz and the rest of the “Birther” idiots don’t want to realize is that it doesn’t matter WHERE Barack H. Obama, Jr. was born, he was a “natural-born citizen” at birth! You see, after WWII and the Korea conflict, US soldiers began bringing home foreign women to become American citizens and some even brought home babies born out of those unions. In 1959, the Federal Government changed the citizenship rules. Essentially, one of a child’s two parents needs to be a US citizen and lived in the USA for a certain length of time at a certain time in order to make ALL of their children US citizens, regardless of where they were born. Stanley Anne Dunham, BHO, Jr.’s mother, satisfied those requirements, so, she could have had 20 children and they could have been born anywhere but the US and would have still been US CITIZENS! The fact that the Birthers don’t know this proves their incompetence; if they do know but pressed on, hoping that people wouldn’t notice, again proves their incompetence. Today (11 June, 2012), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied an appeal by the Birthers, without comment. It’s time for the Birthers to stop this nonsense.

  78. avatar
    James M June 11, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Andrew Rei:
    Regarding the “Birtherism” BS:
    What Orly Taitz and the rest of the “Birther” idiots don’t want to realize is that it doesn’t matter WHERE Barack H. Obama, Jr. was born, he was a “natural-born citizen” at birth! You see, after WWII and the Korea conflict, US soldiers began bringing home foreign women to become American citizens and some even brought home babies born out of those unions. In 1959, the Federal Government changed the citizenship rules. Essentially, one of a child’s two parents needs to be a US citizen and lived in the USA for a certain length of time at a certain time in order to make ALL of their children US citizens, regardless of where they were born. Stanley Anne Dunham, BHO, Jr.’s mother, satisfied those requirements, so, she could have had 20 children and they could have been born anywhere but the US and would have still been US CITIZENS! The fact that the Birthers don’t know this proves their incompetence; if they do know but pressed on, hoping that people wouldn’t notice, again proves their incompetence. Today (11 June, 2012), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied an appeal by the Birthers, without comment. It’s time for the Birthers to stop this nonsense.

    Actually if this information were to become relevant, it would open up another can of worms. It turns out that under the rules you’re imprecisely referring to, Ann Dunham was not old enough at the time of the birth to have met the qualifications.

    ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.”

    If there were any relevance to the idea of a foreign birth, the fact that the law required a mother to be at least nineteen years of age in order to confer citizenship at birth would have become very interesting, and would create a situation requiring an ex-post-facto reconciliation with the 1952-1986 rule against equal protection doctrine.

    This was among the very few really interesting revelations to come out of birther research.

  79. avatar
    y_p_w June 12, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    I tried responding with the Miss verification in the comments of the following article, but I’m wondering if it will make it past the moderator:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/what_did_savannah_guthrie_really_see.html

  80. avatar
    y_p_w June 12, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    James M: If there were any relevance to the idea of a foreign birth, the fact that the law required a mother to be at least nineteen years of age in order to confer citizenship at birth would have become very interesting, and would create a situation requiring an ex-post-facto reconciliation with the 1952-1986 rule against equal protection doctrine.

    There are some outlying cases. I recall there’s a specific case for the Panama Canal Zone where a child born to at least one US citizen parent is by statute a US citizen at birth regardless of the residency status of the parent. I suppose someone could have been born abroad as a US citizen, have never previously set foot on the soil of the US or even a territory, traveled to the Panama Canal Zone, and had a child. Birth in the Canal Zone automatically granted non-citizen US nationality unless the child qualified for US citizenship at birth. I think this law wouldn’t have forced the US citizen parent to be at least 19.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    8 USC 1403 – PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 26, 1904

    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    Then there were laws that would have made children born abroad citizens if their parent(s) had met later standards for passing on citizenship. I believe the part after “RETROACTIVE APPLICATION” is what might apply if someone where born overseas in 1961.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    7 FAM 1133.2-1 Section 301 Text as of October 25, 1994

    (CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)

    a. As amended by Public Law 103-416 on October 25, 1994, section 301 states as follows with respect to persons born abroad:
    ―Section 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    e. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION:

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).

    (2) The retroactive application of the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), shall not confer citizenship on, or affect the validity of any denaturalization, deportation or exclusion action against, any person who is or was excludable from the United States under section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(3)(E)) (or predecessor provision) or who was excluded from, or who would not have been eligible for admission to, the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 or under section 14 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953.

    I’m not 100% sure, but I think that it means that retroactivity may mean that one would legally be born a US citizen.

  81. avatar
    Scientist June 12, 2012 at 7:50 am #

    y_p_w: I’m not 100% sure, but I think that it means that retroactivity may mean that one would legally be born a US citizen.

    I agree. There is also the issue of whether the Obama-Dunham marriage was truly valid in the light of Obama Sr.’s undissolved village marriage. A single mother would have automatically passed her citizenship, regardless of age or residency.

    The bottom line is that the birthers have spent 4 years failing miserably to establish something that would, at best, have a 50:50 chance of rendering the President ineligible. They should have focussed on claiming that Ms Dunham was not the President’s mother. Of course, that isn’t true, but since when have the birthers cared about truth?

  82. avatar
    Sef June 12, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    Scientist: I agree. There is also the issue of whether the Obama-Dunham marriage was truly valid in the light of Obama Sr.’s undissolved village marriage.A single mother would have automatically passed her citizenship, regardless of age or residency.

    The bottom line is that the birthers have spent 4 years failing miserably to establish something that would, at best, have a 50:50 chance of rendering the President ineligible.They should have focussed on claiming that Ms Dunham was not the President’s mother.Of course, that isn’t true, but since when have the birthers cared about truth?

    I’m just waiting for someone from Puerto Rico to run for President.

  83. avatar
    JPotter June 12, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    Sef: I’m just waiting for someone from Puerto Rico to run for President.

    It would be a fun experiment to have an obviously ineligible person run for the office, to establish a ‘control’ reaction. No one especially inflammatory, just an immigrant or naturalized citizen, known to not be a NBC. Then someone from Cuba perhaps, just to push buttons. And then for real fun, send up a non-white, Muslim communist from say…Iran. Maybe just for kicks, run a white white supremacist, who is eligible.

    Take this collection of public reactions and compare to various birther memes, allegations, and biases. Gauge just how far off-base de birfers are re: Obama.

  84. avatar
    donna June 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Sef: I’m just waiting for someone from Puerto Rico to run for President.

    actually that’s an interesting idea for the birthers

    get someone from PR, who meets the age and residency requirements to run for president –

    for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1402

  85. avatar
    Scientist June 12, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    JPotter: It would be a fun experiment to have an obviously ineligible person run for the office, to establish a ‘control’ reaction. No one especially inflammatory, just an immigrant or naturalized citizen, known to not be a NBC.

    There was an ineligible candidate in 2008. No, not Obama, Roger Calero, candidate of the Socialist Workers Party. He was born in Nicaragua and was either a naturalized citizen or a permanent resident (there were conflicting stories).

    donna: actually that’s an interesting idea for the birthers
    get someone from PR, who meets the age and residency requirements to run for president

    I’ve never understood the arguments by which someone born in Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands would be ineligible. They would be citizens at birth and under US jurisdiction, so how would that be any different from being born in NYC? Nothing in the term natural born citizen distinguishes between states, terriitories or other entities. Al Gore was born in DC, and I never heard an issue raised during the time he was VP, nor when he ran for President.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    Some of the 2008 lawsuits naming Obama also named Colero. They were dismissed for lack of standing. Donofrio v. Wells named Obama, McCain and Calero, claiming they were not natural born citizens. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, who declined to hear it.

    Donofrio wrote in his appeal to the Supreme Court:

    Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama. Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. And the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been verified by Respondent.

    Few would argue that Calero is eligible to become President, but that fact alone was not sufficient to have the Supreme Court take the case. (Abdul Hassan would be one of the few arguing in favor of Colero’s eligibility.)

    Scientist: There was an ineligible candidate in 2008. No, not Obama, Roger Calero, candidate of the Socialist Workers Party. He was born in Nicaragua and was either a naturalized citizen or a permanent resident (there were conflicting stories).

  87. avatar
    Sef June 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    JPotter: It would be a fun experiment to have an obviously ineligible person run for the office, to establish a ‘control’ reaction.

    I see that there are still people who have not fully understood the CRS report on NBC.

  88. avatar
    JPotter June 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    Scientist: There was an ineligible candidate in 2008. No, not Obama, Roger Calero, candidate of the Socialist Workers Party.

    I should have specified, a major party candidate, would have to be to be an analog for Obama. Neither major party would agree to this experiment in the general…would have to get the party out of power to put up my dream experimental slate in the primaries. ;)

  89. avatar
    y_p_w June 12, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Scientist: I’ve never understood the arguments by which someone born in Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands would be ineligible. They would be citizens at birth and under US jurisdiction, so how would that be any different from being born in NYC? Nothing in the term natural born citizen distinguishes between states, terriitories or other entities. Al Gore was born in DC, and I never heard an issue raised during the time he was VP, nor when he ran for President.

    The laws granting noncitizen US nationality have at times affected those born to noncitizens in “outlying territories”. I researched how this went down, and this included Guam until 1950, the Philippines until 1935, Puerto Rico until 1917, and the US Virgin Islands until 1917. It got complicated in the Canal Zone.

    In addition, some of the laws regarding citizenship of children born abroad were more lenient if one parent was a US citizen and the other a noncitizen US national (as opposed to an alien). I think in those cases the residency rules were different.

  90. avatar
    Scientist June 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    y_p_w: The laws granting noncitizen US nationality have at times affected those born to noncitizens in “outlying territories”. I researched how this went down, and this included Guam until 1950, the Philippines until 1935, Puerto Rico until 1917, and the US Virgin Islands until 1917. It got complicated in the Canal Zone

    I realize there are US national who were/are not citizens. But anyone under the age of 95 born in Puerto Rico was born a US citizen the same as anyone born on the US mainland I don’t see an argument to treat them differently for presidential eligiibility.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Few would argue that Calero is eligible to become President, but that fact alone was not sufficient to have the Supreme Court take the case. (Abdul Hassan would be one of the few arguing in favor of Colero’s eligibility.)

    Given that some are wedded to original intent it might be fair to ask-“What was the original intent of the NBC clause?” Though there was no discussion at the Constitutional Convention, many writings at the time expressed concern that Americans, having grown up under a King, might look to put a new King in place. Since George Washington decllined the job, there might be a temptation to look to some younger son of one of the European royal dynasties. That is what the NBC clause was likely addressing.

    So, one could make the case that the intent was never to block ordinary immigrants not part of foreign royal dynasties or governing bodies. By that light, there is no reason to exclude Calero (if he is a citizen), Hasan or, for that matter, Schwarzenegger or Granholm, none of whom are tied to the royal families or the governments of Nicaragua, Guyana, Austria or Canada.

  91. avatar
    y_p_w June 12, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Scientist: I realize there are US national who were/are not citizens. But anyone under the age of 95 born in Puerto Rico was born a US citizen the same as anyone born on the US mainland I don’t see an argument to treat them differently for presidential eligiibility.

    Certainly. However, remember Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory and I understand there was actually a VP born in Kansas when it was a territory.

  92. avatar
    donna June 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    Arizona Secretary Of State’s Latest Theory: Obama Lied About Being Born In Kenya To Get Into College

    “Now, I know there’s a lot of people that are very skeptical as to whether he was born in Hawaii,” Bennett told the crowd. “Personally I believe that he was. I actually believe he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college and doing things like writing a book and on and on and on.”

    “So if there was weird stuff going on,” he said, “I actually think it was happening back in his college days because I think he has spent $1.5 or $2 million through attorneys to have all of the college records and all of that stuff sealed. So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/ken_bennett_arizona_obama_college_conspiracy.php

  93. avatar
    Majority WIll June 20, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    donna:
    Arizona Secretary Of State’s Latest Theory: Obama Lied About Being Born In Kenya To Get Into College

    “Now, I know there’s a lot of people that are very skeptical as to whether he was born in Hawaii,” Bennett told the crowd. “Personally I believe that he was. I actually believe he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college and doing things like writing a book and on and on and on.”

    “So if there was weird stuff going on,” he said, “I actually think it was happening back in his college days because I think he has spent $1.5 or $2 million through attorneys to have all of the college records and all of that stuff sealed. So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”

    I wouldn’t expect Bennett to know anything about FERPA either.

    Let this buffoon and his stupidity stick like Super Glue to the Romney campaign.

    You can’t spell crazy without AZ (with apologies to the few sane inhabitants left).

  94. avatar
    donna June 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    since, due to privacy laws, my records are “hidden” for FREE, obama must be an idiot for spending MILLIONS on records already “hidden”

    these people are REALLY deranged

    i do remember 9 in iowa being prosecuted & convicted for gaining illegal access to obama’s loan records –

    Six are accused of accessing Obama’s records when he was a candidate, according to the indictments online. One is accused of accessing the records when he was president-elect.

    The nine people worked for a Department of Education contractor in Coralville, Iowa.

    these were government loans only available to americans

  95. avatar
    Scientist June 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    donna: I actually believe he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college and doing things like writing a book and on and on and on.

    I know of no college admission criterion where being born in Kenya would make a kid graduating from a Hawaiian high school more likely to be admitted to a given college than being born in the US. The mixed race heritage, perhaps, but birthplace no, not when you never lived or went to school there. If it did, every parent on the Upper West Side of Manhattan would be running to Kenya to give birth in the hopes of boosting their offsping’s chances at the Ivy League.

    Did Bennett go to college himself? Does he have kids who did? If soo,, then he knows that a bright mixed-race student from a top Hawaiian prep school would get into most of the top schools he applied to. With a scholarship,

  96. avatar
    donna June 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    scientist: “If it did, every parent on the Upper West Side of Manhattan would be running to Kenya to give birth in the hopes of boosting their offsping’s chances at the Ivy League.”

    as OPPOSED to asians giving birth here for the SOLE PURPOSE of making their offspring american citizens when they apply to schools here –

    it’s called “birth tourism” – For roughly $15,000, his company can arrange the hospital in Los Angeles, the doctor, the house and car rental, and any number of other extras for wealthy Chinese parents-to-be.

  97. avatar
    Scientist June 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    donna-I think the riight wing meme is that those librul colleges give preference to furriners. Of course, they don”t. The truth is that there are an awful lot of smart kids in India and China and Malaysia and elsewhere and their secondary education is first rate, especially in large urban centers (better than the US in many respects). So, it’s no wonder that many of those students will be very strong candidates for the top universities anywhere in the world. If anything, colleges have higher standards for foreign students than US ones.

    Regardless, a kid graduating from a US high school is lumped in with all the other US applicants. Whether he is a US citizen, permanent resident or even an illegal, the colleges don’t care.

  98. avatar
    donna June 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    “Regardless, a kid graduating from a US high school is lumped in with all the other US applicants. Whether he is a US citizen, permanent resident or even an illegal, the colleges don’t care.”

    i’m often reminded of the tom friedman quote:

    “When I was growing up, my parents told me, ‘Finish your dinner. People in China and India are starving.’ I tell my daughters, ‘Finish your homework. People in India and China are starving for your job’.”

  99. avatar
    James M June 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Scientist: I know of no college admission criterion where being born in Kenya would make a kid graduating from a Hawaiian high school more likely to be admitted to a given college than being born in the US.The mixed race heritage, perhaps, but birthplace no, not when you never lived or went to school there.If it did, every parent on the Upper West Side of Manhattan would berunning to Kenya to give birth in the hopes of boosting their offsping’s chances at the Ivy League.

    Did Bennett go to college himself?Does he have kids who did?If soo,, then he knows that a bright mixed-race student from a top Hawaiian prep school would get into most of the top schools he applied to.With a scholarship,

    The assumption is that it is much easier for a foreign student to gain access to scholarship money than for an American. I suppose the anchoring heuristic that leads to this assumption is that someone has been on a college campus once and noticed that there are a lot of foreigners in attendance.