Posted on 09/15/2009 2:26:29 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater
A few quick snippets... Judge David Carter, Central District of California, ordered early discovery; Obama has 30 days to produce his records, including his hospital, birth certificate, name of doctor, and all of the signatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediamattersaction.org ...
Ping
Obambi is probably THE most articulate president we've encountered in decades[…]That would still be Reagan. He didn’t even need a teleprompter.
How is it that the item regarding Hawaii’s law is a “recent” discovery? We “birthers” here at FR knew about Hawaii’s COLB law problems over 18 months ago (at LEAST)...
Just goes to show that even FOX News did nothing on their own to investigate these things if they consider this a “new” revelation.
How infuriating!
The operative word is Americans.
The bottom line is the Bomford certificate looks exactly the same as a South Australian birth certificate of the period should. The alleged Obama certificate looks nothing like a Kenyan birth certificate of the period does.
Australian birth certificates have a basically standardised formula instantly recognisable to anybody who has ever had to inspect them. The precise appearance changes from time to time and state to state as different printers and different printing processes have been used, but the basic format has remained generally consistent for decades. During my time in the Royal Australian Navy, at one stage, one of my duties was reponsibility for inspecting the documents of potential recruits who were required to present their birth certificates for inspection. I'm now a teacher at a private school and we also keep copies of our students birth certificates on file. I know what Australian birth certificates look like. The Bomford certificate is a perfect example of a mid 1960s South Australian certificate as produced by the South Australian government printers (W.L. Hawes). This is not something that was exported overseas.
The alleged Obama certificate on the other hand looks nothing like any other Kenyan birth certificate anybody has been able to produce.
If someone showed you an American dollar bill which somebody had altered to have a picture of Queen Elizabeth II on it in place of George Washington, and had changed the words 'United States of America' to 'United Kingdom of Great Britain', do you think you'd believe for a moment you were looking at a genuine one pound sterling note? Of course not - well, that's the situation I am dealing with here.
The Bomford certificate looks like a South Australian birth certificates. The alleged Obama certificate does not like a genuine Kenyan birth certificate - it looks like an altered South Australian one.
We’ll just keep hittin’ that “Hill” till we take it...;0)
You're ill-informed. She is using her own money for this. She is fighting a fight that you and every American citizen should support.
Obama, just show us your bona fides to be the President of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
This is not rocket science. Just publish your long form Certificate of Live Birth. We The People will then let it go and accept you as our legitimate President and even say we're sorry for questioning you. What the hell are you hiding Barry?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2339872/posts
Or ... you can read the following from http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/09/breaking-news-expedited-discovery.html
Two days ago the Court issued a standard form order -- the one Judge Carter uses in every case, setting in standard form language the conference to schedule discovery for October 5th, but encouraging the parties to VOLUNTARILY commence discovery before that. This is the STANDARD FORM used in EVERY CASE. (I know I already said that, but I wanted to reiterate it.)Take your pick.Orly had already filed a motion for early discovery and TODAY Judge Carter ruled -- and I attach his two sentence order for you to read yourself-- that the motion be referred to the magistrate for initial consideration, and vacated a hearing previously set before Judge Carter for next week to consider the matter.
So....Magistrate Judge Nakazato may rule on expediting discovery later in September, but NO such order has yet been made, and NO discovery can be conducted absent voluntary assent from all sides, until after the scheduling conference on October 5th.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and as I say, don't take my word on that, read the court's order yourself...its only two sentences.
You don't know me. So your nasty, hateful, snide comments are uncalled for. Before you call out someone on an issue about which you know very little, go do some research. It's painfully obvious that Orly misunderstood the judge's order.
As far as Orly's degrees are concerned, they're worth very little if she can't follow the basic rules of civil procedure, which is a first-year law school class.
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich Vattel, Law of Nations, § 212. Of the citizens and natives
I’m sure President Obama will find a judge somewhere to block this.
I like Orly.
I just do.
It will be nice when this issue is resolved.
Taitz seems like a bulldog on the issue.
Why spend over $1 million in attorney fees if all was “in order”? Why not just release them 18 months ago like McCain did his?
That is ALL we’ve ever asked for — undeniable proof that he was REALLY born in Hawaii, and all we’ve ever seen from Obama is refusal to release based upon some presumed “embarrassment” (as stated by his lawyers in the Berg case).
Why should there be a “plan” if the documents ARE produced?
Any British subject would have rendered the date August 7, 1961 as 7/8/61, not 8/7/61.
The BC that this Lucas fellow has IS NOT the Bomford Australian one from about a month or more ago—things are getting jumbled.
HOWEVER the one that the Lucas man SAYS he got from paying off some Kenyan official—and I assume is the one Taitz is talking about-—has authenticity problems too from what Jerome Corsi says.
Who the heck knows what is going on.
Keep him there swinging in the wind. He’s a lame duck already. Joe Biden simply gives the Dems/libs an excuse to reset and buys them more time.
I have been trying to tell these people that if the document does not have the hospital name, the attending doctor (with signature), the registrars name (with signature&date), plus a seal, it is simply a freebie that the hospital gives to the parents as a courtesy.
Or in the case of the State of Hawaii at that time, they would issue such a courtesy "certification" just because you told them you have child that exists now in the State.
This is not rocket science. Obama, show me your long form that includes all the above, not to mention the mother's address; the father's address & occupation, and much more that is on the long form.
CUT THE CRAP EVERYONE! We ALL have these "long form" BC's and so does Obama. Why is he hiding his?????????????
Hope she doesn’t mysteriously OD on aspirin...
Most hospital generated BC's have become pretty much identical over the decades and throughout the World.
First of all, please read my reply at #45, as well as reading this, because there's a lot of information there that is relevant here as well.
First of all, the Bomford certificate is not 'hospital generated'. Nor would the alleged Obama certificate be 'hospital generated' if somehow it was genuine. That's not how it works in Australia, and the language on the alleged Obama certificate indicates it wouldn't be how it worked with that certificate either, if it were genuine which I assure you, it is not.
Secondly, while I agree that a lot of birth certificates around the world are similar, they are not identical. The Bomford certificate is however, identical to a South Australian birth certificate of its period. Not just similar, identical. No other birth certificate from any other place in Australia or from another time period in Australia looks identical to that one (let alone ones from other countries). Very similar at times, but not identical.
That image there shows five Australian birth certificates (including the Bomford one at 4) as its first five images. Number six is an English birth certificate, number seven is Canadian, and number eight is Rhodesian.
The Bomford birth certificate shares similar features to the other Australian certificates because it is one. It's not identical because they do change from state to state and from time to time, somewhat. But the basic format which is laid down in Australian law (not Kenyan law, and not British law) has been consistent for at least five decades.
The pertinent parts are: Hospital name; attending doctor or midwife (with signature); registrar name & date (with signature); and stamp of registration. Without those, everything else can be fraudulent, as has been tried to passed of as a CERTIFICATE. People forget that that simply computer generated document was a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth that Hawaii issued to anyone who wanted verification of ANY live birth.
I have absolutely no argument with the idea that Obama's Hawaiian certificate might be a fake, or that even if its real it proves nothing about where it was actually born. I know virtually nothing about Hawaiian birth certificates, and I'm not in any position to say anything at all about them.
What I do know quite a lot about is Australian birth certificates, and I also know a fair bit about those from other Commonwealth nations. And the Bomford certificate looks exactly like what it's supposed to be.
I'm not saying Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, because I've no way of assessing that claim. I'll leave that to others to do, but I am perfectly prepared to believe that it's possible he was born outside the United States and that a genuine document may be found at some point that proves that he was. But this alleged birth certificate is not that document, it is a pretty obvious fake to anybody who has dealt with Australian birth certificates over any period of time.
What concerns me is that if people are taken in by a patent fraud like the alleged Kenyan certificate based on the Bomford certificate, it's going to make it much easier for them to be discredited even if they are right about other documents in the future. I don't want to see that happen. I don't want to see genuine evidence discredited because people believed a fake in the past. I can understand why initially people latched on to this alleged Kenyan certificate. I clicked on the threads myself in the hope I'd see something that could potentially remove Obama from office. But the instant I saw it, I realised that this looked like an Australian certificate, and while I initially wondered if it was possible Kenya had adopted a similar form, research rapidly showed me that this was not the case. This is a modified South Australian certificate. It is based off the Bomford certificate - to what extent I'm not sure. I don't know if a few details were just photoshopped, or if the fraud was more sophisticated than that. But the Bomford document was used as a template.
Sure - but that's not what I was responding to here. Read the first message I posted in this thread - #12.
I am replying to a statement made by Future Useless Eater in his comment #1 on the thread. I italicised the comment in my post #12 to show what I was responding to - I'll do so again here (this time including the link he had):
-A (very real looking) birth certificate from Kenya'a Coast Province for Barack Hussein Obama II,
Click on the link either here or in his comment #1 and you'll see that that particular birth certificate is the one based off Bomford - and not a newer one.
I know nothing about the provenance of any other alleged certificate and have no particular reason to doubt their veracity. But this one is a fake, and if people keep harping on about it, in my view, they risk undermining their chances of having any other claims they make taken seriously.
I don't want to see a genuine Kenyan certificate dismissed because the issue is being clouded by demonstrable fakes. Especially as it's not impossible the fakes were made with that in mind - "let's create some fakes, so they all wind up looking fake."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.