Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmericanVictory

Legally, evidence is the COLB. PERIOD. Like it, don’t like it, suspicious about it, not satisfied by it -—whatever. It doesn’t matter because it is EVIDENCE. It says so on the face of it. It is issued by a lawful authority.

Unless somebody has something other than suspicions and curiosities, the birthers have no EVIDENCE. It is that simple.

Get sworn affidavits by people who saw him born in Kenya. That would be EVIDENCE. Show that the person who issued the COLB in Hawaii got 1 million dollar deposit into her bank account. That would be EVIDENCE. Whatever EVIDENCE you can gather goes into a pot to be weighed against the EVIDENCE presented by BO.

You will hear this referred to as the weight of the EVIDENCE.

The birther problem is that you have no EVIDENCE. Period.

Your respect for the law should start with the realization that courts work off something called EVIDENCE. Not suspicion, doubt, or uncertainties. This is a real good system. When or if the birthers ever get some EVIDENCE, then they can come to court and play with the grown ups.

Personally, I have yet to see anything that constitutes EVIDENCE on the birther side. If you guys are right, you might want to direct your attention towards getting EVIDENCE. Or, you can act like the liberals, smear people, run around in hysterics, make up stuff as it suits your cause, etc.

parsy, who chooses to not act like a liberal.


18 posted on 08/08/2009 11:00:39 AM PDT by parsifal ("Where am I? How did I end up in this hospital room? What is my name?" Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: parsifal

As I thought, you are completely ignorant. A COLB, under Hawaii law, is not evidence that the person was born in Hawaii. Sun Yat Sen, after he had to flee because of the communist takeover of China, spent his last years in Hawaii, was issued an equivalent document then available. So under your ignorant supposition, that is proof that Sun Yat Sen was born in Hawaii, right?

It has been endlessly pointed out on this and many other conservative sites that under Hawaii law and procedures COLB’s such as the document that you refer to as proof of Hawaiian birth for Obama are issues in large numbers to people who were not born there, since before the birth of Soetoro and at the time hat he was born and ever since.

To introduce such “proof” in a court, since the inadequacy of the COLB is demonstrable within Hawaiian law and public procedures on their face, one would have to produce an official who could be questioned to prove that there was actual proof, such as the actual paper document of the time, that showed actual birth in Hawaii under the practices then in effect. The first questioning of such an official, together with the laws and practices and procedures in effect, would quickly establish that the COLB by itself is not proof of Hawaiian birth. Jut to give one example that can be shown of record in Hawaiian law, for a long time, under the laws designed to protect and benefit native Hawaiians, the COLB was not sufficient to prove birth in Hwaii. Why? Because it does not prove birth in Hawaii.

I gather you believe yourself to be a “conservative” by your calling me liberal. It is amusing to see someone who conceives of themselves as conservative having such blind faith in a government document. In court, you know, there are governing laws and rules of evidence. In fact quite recently the Supreme Court has ruled, as you might have noticed, that the unsupported official reports of official government forensic experts cannot be introduced into evidence in criminal cases without producing the actual examiner who produced them and subject him to examination. Why? Because such official government documents were shown, quite dramatically in fact, to be unreliable.

The question then becomes why the minions of the man in the White House, occupying it at this time, why have they endlessly represented that the COLB is “proof” of his being born in Hawaii when it clearly is not and that can easily be established in the laws and procedures of Hawaii itself as in place at the pertinent times.

Further you appear to have no knowledge of the clause in Article II at issue and what the Supreme Court has said about it. But that is only the beginning. Before you call names you might endeavor to learn something in some depth about the topic, which you admit you have not done.


19 posted on 08/08/2009 11:53:28 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: parsifal
You are inaccurate about much that you purport.

Hawaii gives out "BC"s for foreigners born overseas.


Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
"The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record.
BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.”
It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in.
In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)
.... there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.”
The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.
(See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)
In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”
In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.”

23 posted on 08/08/2009 3:18:05 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson