Posted on 11/03/2008 11:20:35 AM PST by Sibre Fan
The decision was handed down today – it is a long and well-reasoned analysis.
***
Today’s decision is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I have made a good living working in out nations courts and have the utmost respect for them. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system.
***
Now, the decision.
There are two parts – first the response on the State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship.
[Part 1: State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president]
With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast. The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:
“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”
Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.
As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.
Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.
The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon – just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).
[Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship]
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “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.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:.....
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
“British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama's UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963. However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
Judge claims to have seen evidence from the state that he was born in Honolulu. That is a claim which has little wiggle room. COLB has place of birth on it and the claim is that the info is identical to the long version of the birth certificate.
Now is the judge lying? I can’t prove it.
Kevmo, from the link, do a “Find” for virgina.
Virginia Decision
by Wild Bill on Mon 03 Nov 2008
HOWEVER - please see my follow up post about questioning the veracity of the posting.
Funny how, me living in Virginia and checking the Cerfitigate key word each day, I didn’t even know about this lawsuit until now.
Added this to the Certifigate Link Thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2114092/posts?page=185#185
The onus is on him to be transparent even if the court(s) shows disinterest or even bias.
All they saw and commented on was the COLB from 2007 - which is being held as pointing to an underlying document. Obama could show the underlying document, could be completely transparent, but has chosen not to - again, it’s just a logical question - WHY? The court is clearly sympathetic to the Obama storyline.
It was an original typewritten, 1961 COLB was confirmed by State of HI official Fukino (an MD and not a forensics document expert). The COLB posted by Obama on the Internet was falsely represented to be an “original.” (It was an ‘abstract’ of a laser-printed computer record having no physical connection to the typewritten 1961 original.)
I pullquoted this also and it makes perfect sense:
“In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can’t wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they’ll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.”
Are you saying that the court did not see a certified document from the state of Hawaii? But rather something that Obama was allowed to submit on his own? Like me sending you a transcript showing all A+s not my university’s registrar? Did the plaintiff have any right to expert examination?
The document did say place of birth was Hawaii.
This entire discussion is totally confused. It confuses several items. Confusion is the trademark of Obama attempt to take over the presidency.
COLB
Certification of Live Birth
Certificate of Live Birth
BC
Birth Certificate vault copy
All 5 of the above are very different and are totally confused by the Judge and by those discussing them. The Judge is wrong because he confuses everything as the same.
This entire discussion is worthless. It is total mess of ideas. It probably was placed here by Obama to confuse the public. He is doing a good job of confusing the public. But we only need one person with clear thinking to get SCOTUS to hopefully clearly think it through.
Obama should not be President because he is not eligible per the original framers of the Constitution.
See the Donofrio case. He has it clearly thought out.
arrogantsob: “Are you saying that the court did not see a certified document from the state of Hawaii? But rather something that Obama was allowed to submit on his own? Like me sending you a transcript showing all A+s not my university’s registrar? Did the plaintiff have any right to expert examination?
The document did say place of birth was Hawaii.”
The Certification of Live Birth - from 2007, with 2008 border (I kid you not), does indeed say that the underlying document it supposedly refers to says that Obama was born in HI. But none of us have ever seen (and we may never see) that underlying document. Most of us know that Hawaii allowed for parents to ‘apply’ for a Hawaiian birth document - even when a child was born outside the state until 1972. What of that and why won’t Obama reveal his documentation from this, college, et al. So much for honesty and transparency in Government - or as the Dems said in 2006 - the most ethical government ever. Bwaaaaaaaaahahaha - not sure if I’m laughing visciously or crying. Depends on which day.
Did you see another D - Baltimore Mayor - was indicted...just roll the perp walks for all the Ds and then superimpose their promise for honest and ethical government. These people in charge are clowns of the greatest order and they think us fools. Are we? Let’s wake up people, and take back our country.
Had these indictments occurred last year we may have been spared the Obamanation.
We must fight the Obamanation. It’s sick to think ‘the (media’s annointed) one’ co-opted our great land. We must fight for what is right and good for the good ‘ol USA. I plan to fight on every front, whether financial, political or spiritual. Best to all the FReepers out there and people of good will everywhere that place their trust not in humanism, but in the everlasting Arms above.
What court was it and who was the judge or who were the judges? Was the COLB birth referred to as being “unquestionably” authentic the same document discussed so often here that is not the actual “long form” birth certificate (it is difficult to see how it could be) and if so, why is this sound reasoning? There is not only the issue of the COLB not being the actual birth certificate, there is also the question of its being altered which, under Virginia law (vide the Elgin case) creates a presumption of fraud.
See post 36, in which I provided an update:
Update folks. I just checked http://www.whatsyourevidence.com - a rather (!) anti-Berg site. They have not posted this reported decision, and have added a note that they have information that it may not be “real.”
Given that that site has every “reason” to post information that contradicts Berg’s case, and still is calling reports of this case into question, I consider that a rather big deal, so am posting that as an update here.
Now I don’t know what to believe - and recognize that i’ll get flamed for this - but this poster’s prior posts on ObamaCrimes sounded very believable.
In the interest of full disclosure, am posting this as FYI.
Thank you very much; these are by far the links leading to the most well researched information so far posted. The Michigan Law Review article is particularly very well done. What is disturbing is that in the end it will seem to the public and is all very political and leaves us with the impression that a president of the United States can have gained office through false representations and there is no remedy for it. I wonder if there are not in fact legal avenues at least possible that are not covered in the linked material.
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.