Posted on 02/12/2009 10:19:49 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
Maybe the 9-11 Truthers and the 8-04 Birthers could go halvesies on a clubhouse.
?? Original Birth Certificate? Hospital? Doctor's signature?
Sure. They already share Phil Berg. He could be clubhouse leader.
Thread on Dr. Orly’s work: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2184010/posts
I do not know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not, but Obama has NOT released his “birth certificate”. It is a distinct document from the COLB and the two documents have different legal purposes. I do not know where he was born, but the ongoing refusal to produce the official certificate contained in the “vault” is somewhat vexing. And, No, Dr. Fukino does not say where Obama was born. If, hypothetically speaking, it turned out Obama was born in Kenya and was transported to HA in a few days, there is nothing in Fukino’s statement which would be false.
You are mistaken. The COLB is an official Hawaiian birth certificate, and is legal proof of the facts contained on it.
From the document itself: "This copy servers as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b),338-19]"
And a statement from Hawaii:
"Backers of the idea that Mr. Obama isn't a natural-born citizen say Mr. Obama's certification of live birth doesn't quell the issue. They say a certification can be obtained after birth.""But the Hawaii State Department of Health said Monday that there is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID, said Alvin Onaka, a research and statistics officer at the Department of Health."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sorry,
“This copy servers” = “This copy serves”
Really? Have you seen it? The documentation that has been produced is not what was requested. His documentation is a forgery that anyone could do, especially in Hawaii.
The certificate in question is a fake for the simple reason that certificates issued during the time when BHO was born didn’t even remotely look like the one that is currently posted. The one posted is BHO’s attempt to legitimize himself by using a certificate form of recent design.
It appears to me that you are a Dim lurker and I suggest that you just give it up. Everything that is being discussed in this thread now has already been posted ad naseum. You can search FR and see all the pictures of all of the documents yourself.
And you won't find a spec of it in the constitution, nor in any legislative act. - Its all fiction.
Actually, standing is seldom required of any lawsuit. Its only invoked to provide protection to a hidden protected class.
"Standing" basically requires the plaintiff to suffer harm that is distinct from the harm to the general public. In other words, while a lot of people can prove “concrete harm” from Obama being president, very few of them have suffered harm that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large.
I also note that while the WJS article fairly describes the "standing" dilemma, it overlooks the fact that the SCOTUS is constantly manipulating the requirements for "standing" to hear cases that the court wants to hear and reject case that the court does not want to hear. For example, while standing generally requires concrete harm distinct from the public of large, the SCOTUS has carved an exception to allow standing when there is no person who would have standing under traditional rules and as a result, an important legal or constitutional issue that is likely to repeat itself would otherwise go unresolved.
On the other hand, even when a person does suffer harm that is distinct from the public at large, the SCOTUS might reject cases that it does not want to hear by ruling that the harm, while distinct, is too remote to create a justiciable controversy. This is why the court will reject Dr. Keyes' lawsuit. True, as a presidential candidate, he has suffered harm distinct from Joe-Q-Public, but the chances of him winning the Oval Office were so remote that even if Keyes is successful, the result will have no direct impact upon him.
One other note: The "standing" obstacle is not a recent creation to benefit the socialist agenda. It has been part of the American Jurisprudence since the founding of our Country, and has been used by both liberal and conservative courts to open and close the courthouse door.
The shoe is on a different foot now?
I remember when you spammed us daily about your legal difficulties with SJ State, and whinned constantly about all the diversionary tricks that were used in your case, but now you are on the side of the diverters????
What has changed? Are you now not in favor of Due Process?
.
What a pant-load!
So by your theory, as long as I screw the entire country, nobody has "standing" to stop me? - Do you have any idea how moronic that idea is?
There is no credible evidence it is a forgery. I don't know what you mean by it being something "anyone could do".
Since you are so quick to label things as a forgery it should be obvious that no document would satisfy you. Anything can be dismissed as forgery, if all it takes is the allegation.
There are a ton of SCOTUS cases that say different. Warth v. Seldin is a good start.
Actually, standing is seldom required of any lawsuit.
LOL. Maybe you want to ask some of the lawyers around here about that. The fact is that you don't hear much about standing because suits with no standing never get submitted in the first place.
You misunderstand the process. When you request a copy of your Hawaiian birth certificate the state prints that form at the time the request is processed. Nobody says it was generated in 1961, nor is it supposed to be.
"It appears to me that you are a Dim lurker and I suggest that you just give it up."
It appears that you need to think a little deeper. I suppose everyone that disagrees with you about something is a "Dim lurker".
"Everything that is being discussed in this thread now has already been posted ad naseum. You can search FR and see all the pictures of all of the documents yourself."
I am well aware of the things that have been posted ad nauseum. The birthers have created a large mythology with many elements. But those claims do not survive inspection. Having them repeated over and over doesn't make them true.
WTF are you talking about?
This is not "my theory." Standing is a legal principle that has been part of our jurisprudence since the signing of the Constitution. In fact the concept of standing is older than our Country in that we inherited the principle from the British legal system.
>> cough,cough bu!!$hit cough,cough >>
You can repeat the same falsehood on every thread and you’ll get called out everytime. Your repeated claims which have been debunked dozens of times are just nusiances at this point.
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.