Petition Asking Supreme Court To Define "Natural Born Citizen"

KheSanh ^ | November 11, 2012 | KheSanh

[KheSanh]

A petition asking the Supreme Court to give a clear concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen".

Whitehouse.gov url to obtain the first 150 signatures:

http://wh.gov/9dpd

[edge919]

“Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3, I verify the following:

1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

Let's start with the parsed wording of "a birth certificate is on file" ... notice it doesn't say a "Certificate of Live Birth" as the other letters of verification. And second, the verb "indicating" is much weaker than "verifying" or "proving", etc. None of the information that is listed for verification is directly attributed to an "original Certificate of Live Birth." In fact, Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. seems to be making an entirely separate statement about Obama's PDF, when he says "Additionally I verify that the information on the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached matches the original record in our files." How odd. Why make an "additional" statement like that?? Why doesn't he say "I verify ALL the information" or "the REST of the information"?? It's all very odd and inconclusive, especially when Bennett didn't ask if the information "matches":

Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.

Now, funnily enough, AZ SoS Ken Bennett forgot to ask for the date of birth, so it wasn’t included in the verification, and I guess you can try to find some wiggle room there!

He didn't forget. Hawaii dropped the ball. The DOH website says that a letter of verification should be requested using the same form as is used for ordering a certified copy of a birth certificate. That form is on their website and Bennett included it in his request:

Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:

The DOH NEVER verified any of the information contained in their standard form.

On the other hand, with the letter verifying that a parent signed the original certificate on 8-7-61, I think you’ll have trouble making the case that he wasn’t yet 35 when he took office.

I haven't made any argument about his age, and the letter of verification doesn't indicate there's a parent-signing date on an "original" certificate. Here's a link:

link to Arizona LoV

[edge919]

And you think you’re going to convince anyone that YOU are sane??? Please. Just admit you’re wrong. Save yourself further embarrassment.

[Mr Rogers]

“And you think you’re going to convince anyone that YOU are sane?”

Well, since every state, every court and every member of congress agrees with me, what color is the sky in the world where you live?

[edge919]

Well, since every state, every court and every member of congress agrees with me, what color is the sky in the world where you live?

You're making this too easy with this megalomaniacal claim. It's typical of you to resort to nonsense like this since you can't refute what I've posted. Thanks.

[Puzo1]

I have been debating with Obots like Mr. Rogers for years. Whenever they have no answer to your argument, they will typically say that the courts or Congress or someone else has already decided the matter which they claim proves that they are correct.

[Sherman Logan]

Do you really think that anyone believes you?

What term would you prefer be used to reference those who believe Obama is ineligible to be president?

[BigGuy22]

"As long as that document fails to certify any copy of Obama's birth certificate as "correct" under the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the LoV has not legal value."
__

And this is where you are entirely wrong. The letter of verification is not an attempt to authenticate a particular paper document. Rather, it is in itself a legal document certifying that certain information is correct.

You'll notice, for example, that the Mississippi request included a printout of the online long-form PDF. But no one was asked to verify that either the online image or the printout was a valid legal document. The printout was used to specify the information that the requester wanted verified, and the Department of Health responded by saying that that specified information matched what is in the official records. That is a verification of information, not of a document but rather of its contents.

Under Hawaiian law, the verification itself is "considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."

If you are claiming that the letter does not serve under the FRE to authenticate a particular paper document, you are completely missing the point. Now that the letter has been issued, it itself is an official state document, bearing a signature and seal, and is fully admissible under the rules of evidence.

Remember what the FRE say:

"Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating

The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. "

You'll notice that no distinction whatsoever is made between birth certificates and any other form of sealed and signed documents. All your protestations notwithstanding, a signed and sealed verification letter from Hawaii is admissible on exactly the same terms as any certified birth certificate.

[Puzo1]

Maybe you can help me come up with a better name.

What do you call those who believe Obama is eligible to be President?

[edge919]

And this is where you are entirely wrong. The letter of verification is not an attempt to authenticate a particular paper document. Rather, it is in itself a legal document certifying that certain information is correct.

None of the letters of verificatoins certify that the information is "correct." That's the problem. I notice you're trying to shift this argument to the letter of verification have some value as a legal document on a document type, but that's a moot argument. I've been arguing based specifically on the content of these particular letters of verification as a substitute for a certified copy of an actual birth certificate. Without listing specific and RELEVANT facts, then these letters mean nothing from a legal sense. And they certainly are not immune from being challenged. And also, you seem to be arguing against yourself as you earlier said the DOH couldn't really verify the facts in the birth certificate. How is a letter of verification then a reliable substitute??

[BigGuy22]

"None of the letters of verificatoins certify that the information is "correct" ... And also, you seem to be arguing against yourself as you earlier said the DOH couldn't really verify the facts in the birth certificate. How is a letter of verification then a reliable substitute??"
__

Yes, you said this before, and I am still baffled by it.

When a person is born, there are procedures for gathering the correct information. A form is filled out by people who were present, such as doctors and witnesses. The State takes the assertions of these people to be truthful, and enters that information into the state records.

And that's it. That is the first and only time the factual truth of the information is verified. From that moment on, the records into which the information was entered are deemed to be correct, and are relied upon in all cases where the DoH needs to establish facts. The FF&C clause guarantees that all the other states will do the same.

What do you think, if you order a birth certificate from your home state, they'll go out and look for people who were there at the time in order to gather information? Or see if the hospital still exists and if they've maintained their old records? Of course not. They will simply consult the official vital records of the state, and create a fresh document certifying the facts of the event as indicated by those records.

A state official authorized by law then applies a signature (usually a signature stamp) and a state seal, and voilà, you've suddenly got a self-authenticating state document, admissible as prima facie evidence in any court in the land.

And that's precisely what happens in the case of a letter of verification. An official authorized by law makes a statement like "Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statues §338-14.3, I verify the following: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii."

He signs and seals it, and there it is -- a fully legal certification of "the facts of the event ... as stated by the applicant," in this case the birth place of Obama. It too is a self-authenticating state document, admissible as prima facie evidence in any court in the land.

From a logical and legal point of view, a COLB and a LoV are treated identically. There are certain differences -- a COLB will be issued on a standard form, while a verification "may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health." And a COLB will contain all the information prescribed by the legal standards in effect at the time, while the LoV only includes the information specified by the applicant.

You are correct to say that "they certainly are not immune from being challenged." Prima facie evidence creates a rebuttable presumption, which means that it is taken to be correct unless and until someone proves otherwise. And exactly the same applies to a COLB. What that means is, as of the creation of either the COLB or the LoV, Obama is legally considered to have been born in Hawaii. You are free to try to prove otherwise, but until the moment you succeed, nothing changes.

So I am at a loss to understand where you see a legal distinction between a LoV and a COLB. Both certify "correctness" in exactly the same sense, namely, that the information matches the state's vital records. Both are stand-alone documents certifying the facts of a vital event. And both are admissible not only as evidence, but as prima facie evidence.

What makes you think a judge would consider a COLB to be a more valid certification of the President's place of birth than, for example, the Arizona letter?

[edge919]

When a person is born, there are procedures for gathering the correct information. A form is filled out by people who were present, such as doctors and witnesses. The State takes the assertions of these people to be truthful, and enters that information into the state records.

No, they don't simply take "assertions" to be truthful. They have procedures for checking on the assertions prior to signing off on such documentation. This is the whole reason the letter of verifcation fails. Hawaii is ONLY saying they have an original birth certificate with information that matches what Obama's PDF says, but they are NOT saying that the birth record is correct, accurate, authentic, identical, a true copy, etc. This means the information may have been filed, but they are not willing to certify that birth record. And a certified birth record is considered to be self-authenticating. That's why it's so curious Obama has NEVER submitted ANY birth record in a court of law. The letters of verification mean nothing when there very few facts of birth are actually verified. This shouldn't be "baffling" to you at all. It should be a red flag that Obama is a fraud.

[Puzo1]

I agree. When there is a real and substantial issue regarding whether a birth certificate is authentic, the best evidence is the existence and production of contemporaneous evidence from the alleged time and place of birth which goes to establishing with a sufficient degree of certainty the date and place of birth in issue. As one example, era medical records would be very probative in this regard.

[BigGuy22]

"No, they don't simply take "assertions" to be truthful. They have procedures for checking on the assertions prior to signing off on such documentation."
__

Fine, I'll take your description as accurate. My point is, they only do it once, in the days following the event. They do not repeat the procedures each time a birth certificate is requested, whether for a driver's license, passport, or any other purpose. In all cases, they create a new document based on what was originally entered into the vital records, and that is uniformly considered valid certification for the DMV to issue licenses, and for the State Department to issue passports, etc., etc.

Hawaii is ONLY saying they have an original birth certificate with information that matches what Obama's PDF says, but they are NOT saying that the birth record is correct, accurate, authentic, identical, a true copy, etc.

Huh? They're not saying that the birth record is identical to what? Is a true copy of what? The birth record is precisely what subsequent documents are compared to, whether you're talking about COLBs or LoVs. There is nothing with which to compare the official state birth record.

I truly don't understand what you are talking about. Everything you say about letters of verification applies identically to birth certificates. Both documents rely entirely on the official vital records. Neither utilizes independent corroboration.

You still haven't told me what distinguishes them, and why a judge would prefer one over the other.

[BigGuy22]

Actually, I don't disagree. If one can establish that "there is a real and substantial issue regarding whether a birth certificate is authentic," then the accuracy of the original vital records can be questioned and, in that case, if era medical records exist they would in fact be probative.

My point is simply that, in that regard, a letter of verification is in exactly the same category as a birth certificate. Both rely solely on the original vital record. Neither is preferable to the other regarding the information that they certify, and both will be presumed correct unless and until the contrary is proved.

[Puzo1]

Ideally, the polestar in any legal proceeding is the pursuit of truth. That pursuit, if it has any merit, should not be cut off by the presentation of some document which is offered as evidence of that truth when there are still open questions to be answered regarding that truth which are not yet procedurally precluded in the proceedings.

[BigGuy22]

Sure, Mario, whatever.

So, do you agree with me that the COLB has no advantage over the letter of verification? If you want to question both on the same basis, I understand, but you haven’t given me any reason to trust one more than the other.

[edge919]

Fine, I'll take your description as accurate. My point is, they only do it once, in the days following the event. They do not repeat the procedures each time a birth certificate is requested, whether for a driver's license, passport, or any other purpose. In all cases, they create a new document based on what was originally entered into the vital records, and that is uniformly considered valid certification for the DMV to issue licenses, and for the State Department to issue passports, etc., etc.

Again, you're making my argument for me. There's no evidence that Obama ever used the 2008 COLB or the 2011 LFBC to obtain a drivers license, passport or anything else that would legally require a birth certificate. He obtained a new passport in 2005 when he became a senator. Why didn't he already have a copy of a birth certificate available and why did he never present it??

You still haven't told me what distinguishes them, and why a judge would prefer one over the other.

I said that a certified copy of a birth certificate is self-authenticating and that a letter of verification has no legal value when it doesn't list relevant birth facts. What part of that is so hard to understand and acknowledge?? A letter of verification may only be proof of an incomplete birth record on file, rather than certifiable birth record. One has probative value and the other does not.

[Puzo1]

The problem with your position is that you want to decide a factual dispute on the internet with some documents rather than through a judicial hearing at which the rules of evidence would apply. The Certification of Live Birth, Certificate of Live Birth, or Letter of Verification is not sufficient to prove the date and place of birth if, despite admitting those documents into the record after satisfying the rules of evidence, there exists a material issue of fact in dispute regarding those factors. Should such a dispute exist, a plenary hearing is required at which all relevant and probative evidence may be presented and admitted into the record. After all evidence is so admitted, the trier of fact (either the jury or trial judge) can then decide the issues, applying the standard of proof each party may have. The parties will then have the procedural due process right to exhaust all available appeals of the decision. Once all appeals are exhausted, the matter will be finally adjudicated and whatever the final court determines regarding that factual dispute will have to be accepted.

P.S. Keep your little snarky introductions to yourself.

[BigGuy22]

"I said that a certified copy of a birth certificate is self-authenticating and that a letter of verification has no legal value when it doesn't list relevant birth facts. What part of that is so hard to understand and acknowledge??"
__

Sorry, Joe, you are being dishonest. You said that you would be willing to accept a certified COLB but not a letter of verification in order to ascertain certain birth information.

So I said to you,

And that's precisely what happens in the case of a letter of verification. An official authorized by law makes a statement like "Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statues §338-14.3, I verify the following: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii."

He signs and seals it, and there it is -- a fully legal certification of "the facts of the event ... as stated by the applicant," in this case the birth place of Obama. It too is a self-authenticating state document, admissible as prima facie evidence in any court in the land.

Notice, you are dishonest when you say that the letter "doesn't list relevant birth facts." It explicitly states that Obama's place of birth was Honolulu.

And then I asked you,

What makes you think a judge would consider a COLB to be a more valid certification of the President's place of birth than, for example, the Arizona letter?

And that's the question you've been dodging over and over. What's your answer? What makes one a more reliable statement of the President's place of birth than another?

[BigGuy22]

“The problem with your position is that you want to decide a factual dispute on the internet with some documents rather than through a judicial hearing at which the rules of evidence would apply.”
__

Absolute nonsense, Mario. Where did I say anything like that?

I asked you a simple question, and you are dodging it just like Joe is. It’s repeated in the post just above. I’d be delighted to hear a direct answer from you, but after seeing your other online performances I’m very doubtful that you’ll give me one.

Maybe that will help you understand the snark.