[trumandogz]

Now there is a claim that certain relatives of of Barack Hussein Obama II were present at his BIRTH in Kenya. OK, a child may have been born there, and that child may have been actually the genetic offspring of Barack Hussein Obama the first. This may or may not have been the identical person we now have as the occupant of the Oval Office. Perhaps Stanley Ann Dunham was NOT the birth mother of this individual, but took in and raised this child (because her own died at birth) and created the myth of the origin of the person raised in Hawaii.

That is quite a theory, but I do not think it gets you into a courtroom.

[OldDeckHand]

"That is quite a theory, but I do not think it gets you into a courtroom. "

That's right. The best anyone can muster is hearsay, innuendo and what could loosely be described as circumstantial evidence. This is the problem. American law presumes the affirmative. The onus probandi lies with the plaintiff, not the defendant.

As an example, in a civil case regarding paternity, it's the plaintiff (who is presumably suing for support) that has to prove that the defendant is the father. There's is no burden placed on the defendant to prove he isn't the father.

Obama has the upper hand, insomuch as the document that he already posses and that has been publicly validated be state of Hawaii officials qualifies as prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI. The mountain that the plaintiff's would have to climb, would be enormous.