Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

orlytaitzesq.com ^ | 8/2/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.

Barry's Kenyan B.C.??

Special Motion for leave

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)

[Windflier]

...please get of the horse that this is only a Colb!

Dan, you're missing the fact that this document clearly points back to a more root document. It indicates that it is a copy of the entry recorded on the Birth Register, Book 44B, Page 5733.

For the purposes of proving that Barack Obama was indeed born in the Republic of Kenya, all that must be done is to gain access to this particular Book and Page, in order to verify that the information on this document is true.

We'd naturally prefer to see something more like a typical US birth certificate with signatures, weight, time of birth, witnesses, etc. But, those things will not be required to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya, if this document matches the information in the Birth Register.

Chill, friend. I'm an American, and I'm using American terminology to describe this document. Nothing more.

[Bikkuri]

Bomford is being discussed here:

Thank you :) needed a little shut eye (3 hours, just got back up).
Bikk

[PureSolace]

I thought “Troll” came from “Trolling” like when you’re fishing with a trollin’ motor and you’re moving the line and bait up along the banks, hoping somethin’ will bite and BAM! Dinner!

[rxsid]

Joseph Farah from WND...

"The big story I promised you last week on eligibility issue was NOT the Kenyan birth document. I didn't even know about that last week."
Joseph Farah on Twitter

"It's still coming -- maybe tomorrow"
Tomorrow?

And previously...
"Trust me for now: More coming next week on Birth-gate. You will be stunned. No more will anyone say there's "no evidence. (4:25pm Jul 31st)"

[Admin Moderator]

Kevmo and Star Traveler - kindly knock it off or stay off these threads.

[Star Traveler]

Agreed... I’ll knock it off with Kevmo (no more talking to Kevmo...), if that is what is asked...

[Brytani]

Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply tell him to go back and read the previous 6.000+ posts since everyone of his “issues” has been discussed/debunked ad nauseum?

[LucyT]

I like apples and oatmeal.

[Cheburashka]

Blackstone's Comentaries were published in the decade before the American Revolution. They are considered to be the source about the English law which was inherited by the American colonies when they declared their independence.

I have changed the long s’s (which look like f’s) into short s’s, so that the text is easier to read.

This is the URL to Chapter 10.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives

page 354

...

THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such 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, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.

...

pages 361-362

...

THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

[Star Traveler]

Well, from what I’ve seen, over time, is that it’s a “buzzword” and is used primarily and most loudly when someone is disagreeing with you... that seems to be when it always comes up.

But, yes, I’ve been out in the boat trolling, too. That’s more fun that the yelling matches that can happen online... :-)

[Admin Moderator]

Here’s the deal. We have had much correspondence with you about this recently. If you are looking for an itemized contract with specific terms spelled out for your personal edification, then it would probably suit your needs best to choose the break from your routine which was suggested earlier. There is simply not enough time in the day for any volunteer Mods to babysit.

Stay off all of these threads.

[rxsid]

Why didn’t you bold “subjects” in Natural Born Subject? Perhaps, because you know you can not equate a Natural Born Subject with a Natural Born Citizen?

[DMZFrank]

The founders were concerned with the ill effects that foreign influence originating from parents who had not undergone the citizenship vetting process might impress upon the minds of their children. I agree that English common law is the basis for US Law. The US didn’t adopt it wholly unchanged. They did rely on Vattel’s definitions to clarify their intentions, as with this reference from Alexander Hamilton:

Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.

[rxsid]

"HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN (From Birth)?"

VATTEL!

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen);
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

Des citoyens et naturels

From Vattel's (original) French version.

[Cheburashka]

I am quoting a primary source on English law in the middle of the eighteenth century. The law that all 55 men at the Philadelphia Convention were familiar with. The law they grew up with, the law they knew when they were proud to call themselves Englishmen, before July 4, 1776. Before the American Revolution the men in that hall were proud to call themselves subjects of the King of Great Britain. The transmutation of subjects into citizens was part of what the American Revolution was fought about.

If the Constitutional Convention had wanted to require the President to be born in the United States of two American citizens they would have said so in so many words.

[Natural Born 54]

Orly Taitz wrote an update today in which she stated:

“More then one person had certified copies of this document.”

She is the only one, besides the person(s) from whom she got this document, who can disclose the “chain of custody”. Hopefully she will be able to do that at the appropriate time, but she may not as IIRC the source wishes to remain anonymous (understandable but regrettable).

As someone has already told you, there are verifiable reasons why this document could have been requested from Kenya and people on this forum pointed them out. If you had read the thread you would know that you are a bit late suggesting that it was done by someone in the family.

If you had done some reading here before deciding to participate you would know that the people you refer to as birthers have so far tried very hard to dispute the legitimacy of this document with remarkable skill and integrity and have yet to be able to do so. You have mischaracterized their efforts 100%.

I’m not sure the provenance will be so important if it is proved that the birth entry in the Kenyan registry matches this document - almost makes it moot.

The ignorance you have demonstrated in your posts makes you moot, too.

[Nom d’ Guerre]

wndawmn, I believe your discovery is EXTREMELY significant.

The ‘1’ in ‘10th April, 1959’ appears to be a COMPUTER-generated 1 (number one).

If that is true, then the typewriter typeface is a digital version of a typewriter typeface, NOT generated by an authentic typewriter.

Shades of Dan Rather’s IBM Selectric! LOL

I speculate that a forger unwittingly typed the number 1; then when (s)he got to the other instances of the number 1, remembered to type the lower case l (letter ‘el’) because typewriters used the lower case l for the number 1. Likewise, the creator of the Bomford document typed the upper case O (letter ‘oh’) for the number 0 (zero) because typewriters used the upper case O for the number 0.

Right now, to verify my memory, I’m looking at some old recipes I typed on file cards. My beautiful, expensive, German-made Olympia typewriter even provided fractions, but its 1 (one) was definitely a lower case l (el) and its 0 (zero) was definitely an upper case O (oh).

Based on the document’s computer-style 1 (one), I therefore conclude that the Bomford birth registration is a forgery, a FRAUD.

[Nom d’ Guerre]

Oops . . . TChad is right. Some typewriters did provide the number 1 (one).

This image shows one of those keyboards:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Keyboard_on_a_typewriter.jpg

But . . . if such a typewriter was regularly used for those Australian registration certifications, why was the ‘1’ not used throughout the document? Was the typist a fill-in, a pinch-hitter for the day?

[RegulatorCountry]

The transmutation of subjects into citizens was part of what the American Revolution was fought about.

... which makes it especially peculiar, that you'd think the Founders would defer to the English law governing subjects of the king, when those men at the Philadelphia Convention were also quite familiar with Vattel.

As well they should have been, since it was Vattel who first coined the term "natural-born citizen," and provided the definition of the term that more than just a few Founders and even early Chief Justices of the Supreme Court cited.

Benjamin Franklin spoke glowingly of the value of Vattel's The Law Of Nations, as did John Jay, as did Samuel Adams much earlier, in the 1760's, and likewise did John Adams and also James Otis of Massachusetts.

Vattel's very definition of the term was cited, nearly verbatim, by John Jay, John Marshall, John Bingham ... I'd say the evidence is far more definitive for Vattel than English common law, as the source for "natural-born citizen."

[rxsid]

"I am quoting a primary source on English law in the middle of the eighteenth century. The law that all 55 men at the Philadelphia Convention were familiar with. The law they grew up with, the law they knew when they were proud to call themselves Englishmen, before July 4, 1776."

Interestingly, the framers and founders were just as familiar with Vattel. As a matter of fact, they openly read his work during the Constitution Convention itself.

"If the Constitutional Convention had wanted to require the President to be born in the United States of two American citizens they would have said so in so many words."

There are copious items in the Constitution that are not explicitly defined. There's no indication they intended it to be a literal dictionary.
Furthermore, there was no need to define it in the Constitution for the reason I stated above. Folks during that time new Vattel's work and therefore were familiar with his definition. Clearly, Vattel defines "Natural Born Citizen" and Blackstone defines "Natural Born Subject." Which appears in the Constitution?

And....

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was ejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-dangerous-precedent-set-by-obama-being-president/