Replies

"What I’m referring to is down the road at trial, if the case ever gets to trial, when Obama submits his computer generated certification of live birth, when there is more compelling evidence (ie a birth certificate stashed away in Hawaii) that he could produce, to support his claim of being a natural born citizen, but refuses to produce it-—then his evidence should be viewed with distruct—"

I understand what you're saying. But, that "computer generated" Certification of Live Birth has already been legally tested in another case - case name escapes me, and I don't have access to a library right now, but I believe it was a child custody case in HI - and it was affirmed in a HI Supreme Court as well.

Essentially, a mother was trying to deny parental custody rights to a father who was not the biological father, and was not the father of record on the original birth certificate. The Father, however, did posses an amended "Certification of Live Birth" that reflected he was the father. The court favored the "Certification of Live Birth" over the original birth certificate, setting the precedent for future cases that a subsequently issued "Certification of Live Birth" will have just as much evidentiary weight as an original birth certificate, and in that particular case, even more weight than the original.

I believe the name was "Inoye", like the HI Senator - but perhaps spelled a little different.

Apples and oranges.

Sounds like the issue in that case was custody and support—which the law rightfully will be interpretted in favor of support for the child’s benefit.

Here, the issue is whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen eligible to be President of the US. The best evidence of that is the birth certificate, which he’s hiding. The subsequent computer generated document must be viewed with distrust.

But they did compare the two right?

That being said, its a different case with Obama. The relevant point is that Obama could have gotten a COLB though he was NOT born in the Islands.

Furthermore, Obama Sr. was a British Citizen, and to be a NATURAL BORN citizen BOTH of Obama’s parents needed to be Citizens.

Otherwise, The American born son of Osama bin laden could be president. Or Hugo Chaves, or Kim Jong-il. Assuming Bambi was born in the islands, he is still ineligible. If he was born off the island, then he is doubly so.

Only his long form can define these things for certain. If Obama is the son of some other American, then that is a different case altogether, and perhaps that source of “Embarrassment” one of his lawyers spoke of. His COLB may reflect an amendment to his long form that was done to show another father. But I really don’t think so. I think Obama is a British citizen by birth. He is ineligible. He might also be American, but the Duality is what makes him ineligible.

At any rate, I don’t think that case will have legal relevance, because the cases are so different.

Essentially, a mother was trying to deny parental custody rights to a father who was not the biological father, and was not the father of record on the original birth certificate. The Father, however, did posses an amended "Certification of Live Birth" that reflected he was the father. The court favored the "Certification of Live Birth" over the original birth certificate, setting the precedent for future cases that a subsequently issued "Certification of Live Birth" will have just as much evidentiary weight as an original birth certificate, and in that particular case, even more weight than the original.

Well, but in that case there would have been an amended Certificate of Live Birth as well. That's what field #23 at the bottom of the '61-'63 version is for. They make up an amended Certificate, and put the explanation for the amended version in that field.

But what folks are getting at is that the Certification does not contain sufficient information to unambiguously determine natural born citizen status, whereas it does clearly state, if the field is not blank, who the *legal* father is.