It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Citizenship Case A Waste Of Time: Federal Judge

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
BFO

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 

Just want to let you know, I'm not ignoring you. Even The Hon. Judge James Robertson gave Hemenway et al. eleven days to respond. And, your most excellent job of answering your own question
certainly deserves a fitting response. I just don't have the time today, Comrad ') It is Sunday, after all.

I do not think we are in disagreement, per se, anyway. And since Robertson has already expressed some aggravation regarding the "blogoshpere", I certainly do not wish to add any "ethers" to this realm which might aggravate the problem.



"May those who love us, love us well.
And those who do not love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He cannot turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles
So that we will know them from their limping." -
Old Irish Blessing




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BFO

Like it or not, I have been following this case along with many millions of other active US Military and Veterans who have sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution for life.


Where were you guys when they passed the Patriot Act?



Originally posted by BFO
Who wants a bunch (several million) of Active Military and vets to have doubts about the validity of their command?


You speak for all Vets now? Funny. My three best friends are Vets, and none of them think this is a real issue.

In 2008, 35% of Veterans voted Democrat, and only 34% voted Republican. And as the clip below shows, many jumped ship to do so in this election. Clearly, this issue about his birth certificate was not a deciding factor among veterans


blogs.abcnews.com...


But the biggest surprise is for anyone who assumed a major tilt toward the Republican Party among veterans. Thirty-five percent of veterans voting in 2008 identified themselves as Democrats, 34 percent as Republicans (the rest were independents). That’s a striking change from 2004: Republican allegiance among veterans dropped from 41 percent then to 34 percent this year. Democrats gained 4 points, independents 3. What had been a 10-point Republican advantage over Democrats among veterans vanished.


BFO

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by BFO

Like it or not, I have been following this case along with many millions of other active US Military and Veterans who have sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution for life.


Where were you guys when they passed the Patriot Act?


Me, I was protesting in front of my State Capitol. There were several of other vets there too. A lot of good that did. Where were you and your best friend vets?


Originally posted by BFO
Who wants a bunch (several million) of Active Military and vets to have doubts about the validity of their command?


You speak for all Vets now? Funny. My three best friends are Vets, and none of them think this is a real issue.


Most people do not care where Obama was born. And if it were not a Constitutional issue, I would not either.

What is "funny" is how -some- people will try to put words in the mouths of people they either do not understand; or do, but disagree with.

This is not a Democrat or Republican Issue. It is a Constitutional issue. I have rarely voted for either a Democrat or Republican in a Presidential Election. The last person I voted for who had a chance of preventing us from getting into the mess we are in now was Ross Perot.

Hence, the rest of your post really was a mis-assumption on your part about me. And there is no sense in commenting on your assumption that I voted Republican.

Oh, and by the way, I am a woman vet too. Not that it makes any difference. I am not a racist, and I liked Barrack Obama well before anyone knew he would someday be elected to the office of US President.

The sad thing is, that Obama won because of the horrendous condition the US found itself in at the end of the Bush II administration. If you haven't noticed yet, those conditions have only worsened and there really is no end in sight.

All of the conditions present on Nov 4, 2008 did not arise in a mere 8 years, as much as the bi-polar Democrat-Republican partisan machinery has successfully hoodwinked almost everyone into believing.

We started down this slippery slope from the Neo-Liberal Politics of Ronald Reagan (OMG How could I criticize the great Ronald Reagan? And name his agenda as Neo-Liberal? Well, look it up sweetie! and the Truth Shall Set You Free - It is called Neo Liberalism) under the manipulation of the New World Order That G Bush Senior had been working on even before he was head of the CIA plotting to sabotage Jimmy Carter's attempt to rescue the American Hostages in Iran so He would lose his re-election - and it worked perfectly, except for the US Military who died in the rescue attempt.

Plenty of vets have "forgotten" their oaths. It does not stop many from accepting benefits that are predicated upon those lifelong oaths. Personally, I do not know of anyone who has been recalled to active duty after an honorable discharge. But, my heart goes out to those who are now on active duty and have been ordered by Obama into Afghanistan, knowing that he may not be the legal President. Regardless of what those who repeatedly say that Obama was born in Hawaii, etc, ad nauseum; he has yet to prove it. Period.

Head spinning yet? No? Then wrap your head around this one:

Richard Nixon was framed with the Watergate Scandal by the Illuminati for developing an energy independence plan back in 1972. Henry Kissinger played him like a fiddle.

Hey, if you can not handle awareness of conspiracies, you are on the wrong blog, my friend.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
First, no Red Herrings:

-No I didn't like McCain; what he did to his first wife was horrible.

-I could care less if McCain was born in Panama / what his eligibility was. That is not the debate right now.

I believe that BHO's certificate was forged, and that it was a poor forgery but no one cared. Why? Because "they" knew it wouldn't take much to convince the masses given his huge following. Seriously - this is ALL I have seen - has anyone seen the real thing ASIDE FROM THIS SCAN?

Daily KOS - BHO's "CLB"

AS IF I am supposed to believe a scan from the KOS !!! Are you people that dense??


That Judge is a joke. Where is the curiosity? Why has so much money been spent defending this certificate when all they need to do is pull it out on the nightly news next to a known good document??? I hate being taken for a fool and that is what they think I am.



[edit on 10-3-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ACEMANN
I have YET to find a picture of someone holding "the" certificate shown by the KOS's and another KNOWN good certificate SIDE BY SIDE. Have any of these Judges done that? Our "Justice" system is a sham.


That's it? You don't believe it because you haven't seen a picture of somebody holding it up next to another certificate? The State of Hawaii HAS CONFIRMED IT'S A REAL CERTIFICATE.


Good God man.. you're making a fool of yourself.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
S&F For this post its about time. You might not like Obama but find another way to vent that frustration.

Do we forget the controversy that surrounded the last persidents first election? or that he had eight years to ruin the economy?

Seems so.

Move on people.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Is it too much to ask for this guy to just show the damn piece of paper?

And please, PLEASE, stop saying he has shown it. He has not. The certificate shown is useless as proof of location of birth. And, ONE parent being a citizen, at the time of his birth, does not automatically make him a natural born citizen.

Here it is again. Ready? At the time of his birth, anyone in Hawaii could walk into a hospital and apply for a certificate of live birth for their child regardless of if that child was born in Hawaii or not.

And yes, the state of Hawaii can claim the certificate is real and valid because it very well may be. It verifies that a live birth was registered in Hawaii. It DOES NOT prove that the birth registered actually occurred in Hawaii. It may be a properly registered document, that doesn't prove the information contained therein is accurate or matches the original birth certificate claimed to exist.

Let's just ask why?

Why does he just not authorize the release of his original birth certificate?
There is no privacy issue if he is telling the truth. If we have been told the truth the the world already knows what is on it.

But wait, wait.... uh uh uh McCain wasn't born in the US either....blah blah..... irrelevant now but..Yep, and guess what. When asked, he produced the documents. He didn't hide behind his lawyers and the courts. And no, I'm not, nor was I ever a McCain supporter.

Jeez, even if you love the guy don't you ask yourself what the big deal is. I get the impression that those saying to just forget about it would be the ones crying the loudest if it were the other way around. This is not 1 or 2 guys questioning this. It is thousands of people.

Didn't Obamas lawyers claim something like releasing the original would prove damaging and/or embarrassing? Does this not prove that the original contains something different from the released version?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial
Is it too much to ask for this guy to just show the damn piece of paper?


For a moment there I thought you were channeling George W. Bush




Here it is again. Ready? At the time of his birth, anyone in Hawaii could walk into a hospital and apply for a certificate of live birth for their child regardless of if that child was born in Hawaii or not.


And this statement is based on what legislation, law, statute or policy of the State of Hawaii?

I'd like to see the foundation for that claim, if you don't mind.



It may be a properly registered document, that doesn't prove the information contained therein is accurate or matches the original birth certificate claimed to exist.


Actually it has to match, that's why it's called a certificate - the state certifies that the information on a printed out/photocopied certificate matches the original.



Why does he just not authorize the release of his original birth certificate? There is no privacy issue if he is telling the truth. ...

Didn't Obamas lawyers claim something like releasing the original would prove damaging and/or embarrassing? Does this not prove that the original contains something different from the released version?


On the original certificate there could other information, pertaining to medical conditions for example, of Obama or his mother.

We just don't know, and any speculation that the reluctance to release his private original certificate could be for this reason, or that reason, is just that: speculation.

There has to be strong evidence to convince a Court to order the inspection of someone's vital records. This isn't true just for Obama, but for everyone.

As of now no one has presented any evidence to indicate that Obama wasn't born in the United States, that would be admissible in Court.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Primordial
Is it too much to ask for this guy to just show the damn piece of paper?


For a moment there I thought you were channeling George W. Bush



Here it is again. Ready? At the time of his birth, anyone in Hawaii could walk into a hospital and apply for a certificate of live birth for their child regardless of if that child was born in Hawaii or not.


And this statement is based on what legislation, law, statute or policy of the State of Hawaii?

I'd like to see the foundation for that claim, if you don't mind.


"§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]"



It may be a properly registered document, that doesn't prove the information contained therein is accurate or matches the original birth certificate claimed to exist.


Actually it has to match, that's why it's called a certificate - the state certifies that the information on a printed out/photocopied certificate matches the original.


The following seems to allow for a certificate to be subject to 'certification' by some judicial/administrative body, indicating that they acknowledge that said certificate may be wrong and in need of further review. And I know the Hawaii dept of state verified his certificate as valid, they just never actually said it was accurate.

"§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]"

The following is from the Hawaiian government website regarding applying for Hawaiian home lands. Apparently, the certification of live birth is not good enough for them.

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."



Why does he just not authorize the release of his original birth certificate? There is no privacy issue if he is telling the truth. ...

Didn't Obamas lawyers claim something like releasing the original would prove damaging and/or embarrassing? Does this not prove that the original contains something different from the released version?


On the original certificate there could other information, pertaining to medical conditions for example, of Obama or his mother.

We just don't know, and any speculation that the reluctance to release his private original certificate could be for this reason, or that reason, is just that: speculation.


Exactly, we don't know. A medical condition of his mother? C'mon. What could possibly be damaging on a birth certificate. I have my original. There is just basic information. Who, what, where, when type of stuff. But is is a full original w/ doctors signature and seal.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial
"§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. ... or if not so attended, by one of the parents. ... [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]


So, in essence your theory is that Obama's parents brought him from wherever he was born and registered him in Hawaii as being born (unattended) in Hawaii?




Originally posted by Primordial
And I know the Hawaii dept of state verified his certificate as valid, they just never actually said it was accurate.


Do you think it would be possible to issue an inaccurate certificate and yet still be valid? Seems to me they are mutually exclusive.




Originally posted by Primordial
"§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]"



§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health.


If Obama was initially registered as being born outside Hawaii, they couldn't alter or file a late certificate, but it doesn't matter because - if I got your theory right - they initially registered him as being born in Hawaii even though he wasn't, by claiming his birth was unattended.

So late or altered certificates don't matter in that theory. Unless you're contesting that they didn't register him initially has being born in Hawaii.



§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. ...
(e) As used in this section, “late” means one year or more after the date of birth.


We are sure Obama's certificate isn't a late certificate because his registration date is August 8 1961, 4 days after birth.

Still from §338-16,


(a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.


I don't see any indication of this on Obama's certificate. Unless you're saying that the alterations occurred between August 4 (Obama's date of birth) and August 8 (registration date).

But in any case there is no distinct mark on Obama's certificate that points out to it being an altered certificate (We already ruled out that it can't be a late certificate).




Originally posted by Primordial
The following is from the Hawaiian government website regarding applying for Hawaiian home lands. Apparently, the certification of live birth is not good enough for them.


From DHHL's page


Welcome to the Hawaiian Home Lands program. The program has its roots in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, as amended. It provides native Hawaiians with several benefits that we hope will assist you and your 'ohana for generations to come. ...

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian home lands homestead lease, you must meet two requirements:

* You must be at least 18 years of age; and
* You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian. This requirement remains unchanged since the HHCA's passage in 1921.

source


That program does not apply to Obama, since he is not a native Hawaiian.

And the requirement that the DHHL has of seeing the original birth certificate and not the certification of live birth most likely has to do with the parents' information (birth place), which does not show up on the certification of live birth.

It makes sense since this a program for native Hawaiians, so they'd need to know where a person's parents were born.



[edit on 10-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


I am sorry but you and people like you are really lost! I honestly feel sorry for you. If you really think you have a case for what is happening then you are the problem!



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


Brilliant argumentation! Profound, meaningful and relevant.

Now if you only could package those elaborate arguments in a complaint and present them in a Court of law... you'd be seeing Obama's original certificate by the end of this week!

Get on it buddy



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


Funny, the rest of us feel the same way about you.

Trying to overturn an election on the basis of some transparently fictional technicality, because you don't like the results, is not a sign of a rational approach.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Two comments..first what was posted on his site...It was a certificate of live birth.(stating that a birth certificate was presented in Hawaii).not a birth certificate. That is what people of foreign countries do all the time...
Second...if you think all of these federal appointed judges are the good old honest people, you need to go back to bed or get drunk. Obama has went to great length to seal all of his private records..that should cause you to wonder why..Last..I have many personal friends in connected places..Judges,,CIA,FBI,Congressmen, DA, Sheriff, ets..And all say if the average american new how the crooks are control of the country..they would riot..and start lynching people..I don not care if you believe me or not..because I am prepared for what is coming...and so are the people in power..the only people who will survive are the ones who are prepared..and yes..the big boys have a plan to save their ass, they always do.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj75

Our court system is a joke, and most judges are retards...and this judge IMO should be kicked off the bench and in the teeth....


The judges aren't stupid, they're corrupt. They never ask which side is right - they ask which side will pay me the most.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


I read 'unattended' as meaning not attended by a representative of the 'birthing facility' (hospital), ie. a doctor, administrator, etc..., so the parents would register the birth themselves.

"... by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents"




if I got your theory right - they initially registered him as being born in Hawaii even though he wasn't, by claiming his birth was unattended.


Correct. What would stop a parent, who being a resident of Hawaii, and by chance being out of the state or country at the time of delivery, from registering the birth upon return and claiming a home birth.

My point of posting the information on 'late' certificates relates to verification, not that his was filed late. They allow for verification of a certification showing they acknowledge that a 'certification' is not infallible.

As for the Hawaiian homestead, again you missed my point. Maybe I wasn't clear on my reason. It's just to show that in some cases a 'certification' just isn't good enough because it doesn't supply all the information that the original does, and as shown above is subject to errors.

Look, I believe even if Obama were to come out tomorrow and publicly state he was born in Kenya nothing would come of it. Our system is corrupt, people don't care. Some will raise a fuss and then some excuse would be made that nothing could be done because it's too late.

I just look at it like this. HE ran on issues like 'change' and 'transparency', criticizing the Bush administration for it's secrecy, lies and corruption. So what's the big secret here. Do what you said you would do or be labeled as just another lying politician. I don't like Obama but that's not why I want him to come clean. I'm just sick of all the lies. Just release it if there is nothing to hide, you know? Truthfully, I don't want him removed now. It is too late because then we'd be stuck with Biden. THAT guy gets to me. HE just seems like the epitome of sleazebag politicians.




Do you think it would be possible to issue an inaccurate certificate and yet still be valid? Seems to me they are mutually exclusive.


Actually, I was wrong in that they never verified the 'certification of live birth' released on the internet. The statement released was...

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures"

So, that says 'A' birth certificate is on file for Obama. It does not verify anything else other than one exists. It could state something totally different from the internet document.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Primordial]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BFO


The key issue in this particular case, at this particular juncture, is why it is not frivolous to ask the question in the first place, "Is Obama the true Commander-in-Chief?" for the millions who remain under oath, and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We might be (many are already) subject to following potentially illegal orders, just like the defendants in the Mi Lai Massacre courts-martials, if Obama can not prove he is a natural born US Citizen. As Obama has already ordered many of us into Afghanistan, we need an answer. What will be next, an order to shoot to kill a demonstrator outside the White House?


The likelihood would have been much greater under the previous administration.


www.nytimes.com...

(7th paragraph)


• In an Oct. 23, 2001, memo, John C. Yoo, then a Justice Department lawyer, explained how Mr. Bush could ignore the Fourth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act and deploy the military within the United States in “anti-terrorist operations.” In the same memo, Mr. Yoo argued that Mr. Bush could also suspend First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokingman2006
...on one hand they say his Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake but throw out the case. ...


The interesting thing, if I understand it correctly, is that (back in those day) you could get a Hawaiian birth certificate, even if you weren't born in Hawaii. The thing you COULDN'T get is the long form (also called the vault form). They want to see not the birth certificate in the form that everyone thinks is a birth certificate, but the actual long form that is filled out at the hospital where you were born. (Again, if I understand it correctly).

The LONG FORM is what he is refusing to show, and indeed has been sealed.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
It's sealed because it's a private medical record, and it's illegal for the HI .gov to release it under state law.

It's been examined by state officials to verify it's authenticity, but they won't release it, because it's illegal for them to do so.

Personally, I've never had a copy of my long form, and never been asked for one. All I have is my short form. The hospital I was born in was closed decades ago.

For all legal purposes the short form is the valid Birth Certificate, period.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by xyankee
 


Funny, the rest of us feel the same way about you.

Trying to overturn an election on the basis of some transparently fictional technicality, because you don't like the results, is not a sign of a rational approach.


Have you read any of my previous posts? If you had then you would know that it has nothing! to do with overturning an election. Are you that dens? It has to do with the issue. GET IT!? If He resolved the problem he would have one more supporter.

It has to do with you allowing govt. to lie to you and it being ok. If you cannot understand why we have the constitution and the reason for keeping the leaders in check then go live in some other country where you can be a YES MAN!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join