DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[null and void]

Obama. He’s not in jail. He has no valid record, legally he’s a nothing, a cypher.

He’s really...
.
.
.
.
.
...wait for it...
.
.
.
.
.
ready?
.
.
.
.
.
A loose cypher.

[Non-Sequitur]

Restated: It sure the hell sounds like Justice Gray believes "common-law" is Vattel.

Except that quote is from Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion and not the majority opinion written by Justice Gray. And as I assume you know, dissenting opinions are not binding, do not form precedent, and are not part of case law.

Link

[melancholy]

He wasn’t into girls, you know.......

[bgill]

So 0devil was planning in 2004 to destroy our country.

What was happening in 2004 to cause him to rush to hide records? Oh, yeah. He was running for the Senate. Seems he was afraid about something coming out during that campaign. If only Keyes could find out what it was.

[curiosity]

We have produced proof that the claims in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii do not qualify as prima facie evidence.

So you have evidence that his birth was fraudulantly registered? That's the first I heard. If it's true, please show it to me.

IOW, the Kenyan birth certificates have just as much legal veracity as everything in Hawaii’s Department of Health.

I see. So a Kenyan health official has publicly stated that Kenya's vital records show he was born in Kenya? That's the first I heard. Can you provide a link?

We aren’t able to look and see what’s in Kenya or to have Kenya tell us whether the indexed location on the Kenya BC is accurate so we have no way of producing proof positive of a birth in Kenya (much less Canada).

In that case, you have no way of disputing the prima facie evidence of a Hawaiian birth.

But we have done that process with Hawaii and we know that what is there does NOT pass legal muster.

That is simply not true.

[curiosity]

In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — it MUST appear in Court. It NEVER has.

That's because no court has asked to see it yet. But in the event a court asks for it, it will accepted definitive proof of birth in Hawaii unless you have some evidence to challange its veracity, which you do not have.

[bgill]

Note that the files were returned, so they may have just been copied for safe-keeping and then the originals put under guard at the hospital. WND says officials said files were missing or altered, but don't say which ones.

The answer is simple. Messing with several years and several individual's records distracts from the specific documents you wanted. Same as the passport break in where they were after his passport records but then messed with Hillary's and McLame's to throw the scent off.

[parsifal]

You tell me. It’s your info. Set it out in a step wise method where other people can follow what you are saying and see the evidence for each step, and decide on the relevance.

For example, on the one non-white kid with no birth weight, ...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. How can I, or anybody else, base a decision on this kind of stuff when we have no idea what you are talking about or how it ties into Obama.

It would be like saying “Obama is lying being born in Hawaii, because everybody knows when you have a dog, INSIDE THE CITY, it has to have its shots.”

Now look at my statement. Part of it is true. Dogs inside the city have to have shots. But that is completely disconnected from any kind of relation to Obama and whether he is lying. Do you see? If you said that to some one, they would dismiss you as a quack, because your statement is just meaningless.

Now suppose you put it this way.

1. Obama wrote in Das Kapital, that his grandmother bought him a new puppy when he was first born, a Shitzoo named Bonkers. (evidence)

2. At that time, the Stanleys and Obama purportedly lived within the city limits of Honolulu at 1313 Wackaheeni Drive. (evidence)

3. A review of all dog tags issued by the City of Honolulu in 1961 and 1962 reveals no tags issued to a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”. (evidence)

4. A review of all AKC papers issued for Hawaii in 1961 and 1962 show no papers issued on a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”or to any one named X Stanley.(evidence)

5. However, a review of all dog tags issued in Mombasa, Kenya for 1961 and 1962 reveals a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” was issued a Non-food Animal tag on August 5, 1961 to an Ann Stanley registered owner, whose address was 4236 Jihad Drive, Mombasa Kenya.

5. Therefore, based upon the above premises, it is apparent that Obama is a liar, and a commie liar to boot, because no good American would ever lie about his dog.

You see, my statement is set forth in a logical fashion. It is something a non-birther can read and understand.

WARNING TO BIRTHERS!!!! DO NOT TAKE THIS DOG STORY AS TRUE. IT IS MADE UP! OBAMA NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD A SHITZOO NAMED “BONKERS”-—DO NOT ADD THIS ITEM TO THE BIRTHER DATABASE!!!

parsy, who hopes this makes it more clear

[BP2]

Justice Gray mirrors Justice Fuller's dissenting Opinion citation, about 11 paragraphs down in the ruling Opinion:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

Furthermore, if anyone is going to erroneously re-construct Blackstone's definition of "Natural Born Subject" into "Natural Born CITIZEN" — in 1787, 1898 or 2010 — they CANNOT ignore this section from Blackstone Commentaries — which DIRECTLY pertains to Obama's status being born a British Subject:

Its an ALL or NOTHING deal, Non-Seq.

[parsifal]

Yes. I have been busted. Join me.

http://www.astralprojectnow.com/index.php?v=1u&apid=I105597A&apflag=1&;

parsy, who says Om Mani Padme Hom! Chaka Khan. Shantih. Shantih. Shere Khan. Jai Guru Deva!

[parsifal]

Yes, and African Hospitals enjoy a well-deserved reputation around the world for their cleanliness and well trained doctors.

[BP2]

That's because no court has asked to see it yet. But in the event a court asks for it, it will accepted definitive proof of birth in Hawaii

Please put on your spectacles and tell me what this says (and means):

[little jeremiah]

So what will the 0team bring in, a laptop and show them a online bunch of pixels?

[Fred Nerks]

It’s a walking aid. No one pushes them sitting down in it. The walking aid can be used as a seat. You are trying to make a walking aid sound like a wheel-chair, which a walking-aid IS NOT!

[parsifal]

ROTFLMAO! Like anybody would have to fish for it? Or want to fish for it? That would be like going fishing for old boots and worn out tires. You may snag your line on it, but they’re not keepers.

By all means—Please keep the Birther Treasure Trove of Incriminating Evidence hidden and away from view. Guard it well, and let not a whisper of it escape your online lips.

parsy, who is giggling hysterically!

[thecodont]

You may snag your line on it, but they’re not keepers.

Don't be so sure about that, mister.

[BP2]

Yep ... nothing quite as pathetic as those nutso After-Birther Conspiracy Theorists:

[Fred Nerks]

You are correct. I remember seeing it, too. Possibly referenced on the long thread?

That reminds me, from time to time things come up that should be placed on that thread FOR THE RECORD. And this is one of them.

LONG THREAD LINK

[Non-Sequitur]

Its an ALL or NOTHING deal, Non-Seq.

So you say. But nothing in Justice Gray's opinion supports such a claim. As anyone who has read it would see.

[OafOfOffice]

Yes, trolls, YOU are the real CONSPIRACY THEORISTS!

I know what I like to do with my free time, sit at dailykos or DU and mess with people I have nothing in common with. *sarcasm*