WorldNetDaily staff writer Bob Unruh published an article today titled ‘Green light’ to see Obama’s Hawaii files.
According to Taitz (and I guess she would know), Obama’s attorney sent a copy of the President’s long-form birth certificate to Judge Malihi and to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. However, as with many things in the past, Orly believes that this gives her the right to look at the original:
That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.
“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,” she said.
I am not a lawyer so I can’t say for sure whether there is any validity to this claim insofar as the original stamped and sealed certified copy that was shown to the Press last April. My feeling is that it does not. Evidence gathering in the Georgia administrative courts seems to be a much more informal process than in Superior Court. The administrative court just collects information to aid in recommendations. Lots of things were admitted into the record of Farrar v. Obama that violate “ordinary rules of evidence.” However, Taitz isn’t stopping at the certified copy; she wants the whole enchilada, a subpoena to Hawaii for the original hospital form, something which the State of Hawaii has already said it was illegal for her to have.
Orly’s “green light” came from Judge Malihi who said, “feel free to petition the Superior Court, if you so choose.” That’s not a green light so much as it is an unmarked intersection. The red light is down the street at Superior Court.
WorldNetDaily published this and a series of other articles that encourage Orly Taitz’s delusions, instead of urging her to get the help she needs.
While we’re on this article, I wanted to point out one other paragraph by Unruh:
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
Herb Titus is not a “top constitutional expert,” but that’s not what I wanted to point out. Note that Unruh says “argument is also supported by.” He says that because to my knowledge Titus himself didn’t cite Minor (which is reasonable because Minor doesn’t further his argument and Titus reasonably knows that). Titus believes that “natural-born citizen” is defined not by the courts said but by natural law, and that derives from his reading of the Bible.