Posted on 11/03/2008 11:20:35 AM PST by Sibre Fan
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.