uh...YES. It says so right on the document!
LOLLOLOLOLOLOL!
Try using THAT little doc when you attempt to get a passport.
Re: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
The COLB is intended ONLY to attest that the person was born — nothing else. In a sense, it affirms what we can logically assume simply by looking AT Obama. If he’s standing there he must have been born. The COLB is not useful, as evidence, outside of the birth itself, and not the circumstances, such as father, mother, attending physician or nurse, or even the date.
Words are everything when it comes to legislation. Courts wrestle with them when a case hinges on the interpretation of legislative intent. What did the legislature mean when it used a certain word rather than another? Cases can be decided one way or another depending on whether a judge believes that Congress intended something that is otherwise unclear in the legislation itself.
The fact that the disclaimer uses “fact of birth” rather than “facts of birth.” The latter would encompass far more than the latter and could be interpreted to mean the name of the father and mother, doctor, date, etc. Again, words are everything, so when the Hawaiian legislature passed those statutes they meant “fact” rather than “facts” for a reason.
The COLB was intended only to provide an individual with a basic document establishing bona fides. That is, it shows that the person whose name is on the document really was born and is not a fictitious individual.
******
As you know, Obama's mother's side of family originally came from Kansas, I believe, where Obama sill has a lot of relatives from his mother's side of his family.
So tell me this: Let's suppose that Obama was involved in a dispute over a will of a rich Kansas relative who died and left Obama a lot of money in the will, but some of Obama's Kansas relatives were disputing the details of the will.
Let's suppose that in order to get his share of the will, Obama had to go to court to prove that he was who he said he was by presenting a copy of his birth certificate.
1. Tell me, do you seriously believe that a court in Kansas would accept the Obama short form birth certificate that we see on Obama's website as proof that Obama is who he says he is?
2. Also, do you seriously believe that a Kansas court would go to the trouble of downloading a copy of Obama's short form birth certificate from the internet like the rest of us had to do if Obama asked it to?
3. Or, is it more reasonable to expect the court to order Obama and his lawyers to show up in court with a fresh copy of his short or long form birth certificate that the state of Hawaii sent Obama, because it is not going to accept a copy of Obama's birth certificate that has been downloaded from the internet.
4. Myself, I don't think that a Kansas court would be very happy if Obama told the court something like this: If the court wanted a copy of his birth certificate, it could get one by simply downloading one from Obama's website.
5. And I don't think that the court would be very happy if Obama walked into court with a copy of his short form birth certificate that he downloaded from his own website, especially if Obama walked into court with a copy of his short form birth certificate where the number on the upper right side was blacked out like the short form birth certificate we see on several Obama sites.
6. Obama's short form birth certificate might be accepted in any court of law, but it won't be one that is downloaded from an Obama website.
7. In my opinion, it will have to be a copy of a birth certificate that Obama received fresh directly from the state of Hawaii on which the Hawaii seal is prominently displayed.
And Monopoly money says $500.
And has the same legal value as the best that Obama has in Hawaii. As even Gov Neil Abercrombie admitted when he told a Star Advertiser columnist that what they have in Hawaii is not likely to convince doubters that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But you know that.
Hey, let me ask you this. Do you think there should be a process where documentation of eligibility is presented before a candidate’s name is placed on the ballot? Why or why not?