Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

Taitz-produced Kenyan Obama birth certificate, after extensive scrutiny, still stands up

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.

I am posting the timeline also, due to the fact important information now with the current administration, gets hacked off the internet.

www.aipnews.com...

[edit on 123131p://bWednesday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

On a different note, and not directed at CS . . . . why does the South Australian BC not have the correct coat of arms?

Even more interesting is why does the Aussie one have a modern '1' on the date 10th April...when apparently typewriters then did not have a '1'...and they had to use a small L to denote a '1'. And before everyone says rubbish....why does the rest of the BC use the small L for every other number one.
Let alone that the writing is above the creases.
Still, the Bomford man said it was his original copy so it must be...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


I am posting the timeline also, due to the fact important information now with the current administration, gets hacked off the internet.

And this forum is not on internet? You don't think it could be hacked?

And BTW that aipnews site is just a "clearinghouse" for the the ACTUAL
source Free Republic. Are you aware of that?


[edit on 5-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


The comments on the free republic site are saying that Orly Taitz's site was compromised in the early morning hours of 8/2/09. I think that means something "fishy" and "fun" was going on. What is the resident wisdom on that item of diversion?

Hackers or deliberate manipulation by the site owner? Which makes more sense?

www.youtube.com...





Aired 8-4-09 Michael Savage interviews the Democratic attorney Philip Berg, who filed the first lawsuit against Obama relating to the birth certificate issue.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Berg must be racist . . .

wait . . .

he is a democrat . . . democrats are not racist . . .

but all birthers are racist . . . and disgruntled republicans

WTF is going on here?

[edit on 8/5/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


One of the problems I have with Berg is that he claimed Obama confessed to being Kenyan simply because he didn't respond to the lawsuit. That's ... well ....

There are other things you could say about someone not responding to a lawsuit, but 'confession' isn't one of them. I'm searching for the original document now .. it's on World Net Daily somewhere I think ...

Originally posted by Hazelnut
Hackers or deliberate manipulation by the site owner? Which makes more sense?

Now you are catching on.

You tell me your theory and I'll tell you mine.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f35cee017b5.jpg[/atsimg]

Having some now...KK

Originally posted by FlyersFan
One of the problems I have with Berg is that he claimed Obama confessed to being Kenyan simply because he didn't respond to the lawsuit. That's ... well ....

Technically in a lawsuit failure to respond to allegations is taken by the court as an admission that those allegations are true. So technically, Berg can say that Obama's failure to respond was an admission. Doesn't necessarily mean that the allegations are true, but the court takes it that way regardless.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Jenna

Yes, technically. But not really. Ya' know? Obama didn't admit to
being born in Kenya. IMHO Berg was saying that to get attention for
his cause. Right or wrong .... but that's what it looks like.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


They try to shame us into silence, I guess.

I will be happy to shut up when I see all his records.

But until then, it is a mystery,



[edit on 013131p://bWednesday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

No, it doesn't and yet you still blather on about it.

Honestly, this thread boils my p*** because of the idiocy shown by people who believe this nonsense.

You all want a damned good kick up the arse, might bring you back to reality.

Wonder how long this comment lasts. Hopefully some of you people will see it before it goes.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!


Let me first state, that this is about mortgages, but it is the same across the board.

Link

Q: I just found out that the mortgage company is foreclosing on my house! What do I do?
A: Once you receive a copy of a foreclosure lawsuit, you have only 28 days (including weekends) in which to formally respond to the court. If you do not respond, a "default judgment" can be filed against you, meaning that the court assumes that you do not dispute the bank's allegations and will enter a monetary judgment against you, plus an order to have your house sold to satisfy the debt. Anytime a lawsuit is filed against you, you should consider talking to an attorney to discuss your options and responses.

Link

If you do not appear and defend against a lawsuit in the time stated in the summons, the plaintiff can, and probably will, take a default judgment against you. A default means you have lost the lawsuit even if you have good defenses to the claims. Again, talk to your attorney!

[edit on 8/5/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by Jenna


I believe you are confusing a non response with: Nolo contendere.
NOT the same thing. Unless you 've got some legal references handy?

reply to post by FlyersFan


That may very well have been his reason for saying it was an admission of guilt. Not exactly the best way to go about drawing attention to his case, but technically he can say it if he wants.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Look at my post right above yours

[edit on 8/5/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Thanks. I see that now and accept it.

Thread is moving briskly.

reply to post by kinda kurious


No, I'm talking about a default judgment resulting from the defendant not responding to a complaint.

Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment
(a) Entering a Default.

When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.

Edit: I see Lemon posted something that explained it before I did. Took me a minute to find the relevant rule.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Jenna]

don't know if this has been covered since i can't keep up with this thread!

for whatever reason, obama's machine has made huge efforts to squelch the birth certificate issue, both during the campaign and after the election. we've devoted most of our attention to the issue of where he was born and the trickiness of whether or not he was "natural born" given the ages and residencies of his parents, with some discussion devoted to the possibility that he lost "natural born" status when he was adopted by his stepfather in indonesia. two very serious issues. but what about the fact that there is documentation that stanley and baby barack moved within days of his birth to seattle where she attended the university of washington. documents are presented that shows she attended u of hawaii only sporadically, and by examining the dates of college attendance in both places, it appears that she never actually lived with barack senior. that's kind of odd, don't you think?

much of this information is available in links from this website that tends not to be listed on google so much easier to get into
Defend our freedoms foundation

so here's my outrageous suggestion: maybe the big secret they must hide is that stanley is not the mother of baby barack at all. maybe she and her parents agreed to adopt this newborn infant who was the offspring of two entirely different parents who were well known and powerful and could not be known to have had a baby together, but who watched over and educated him throughout his life. Possibility?

Originally posted by daddio
Exactly, divide and conquer!!!! That is why the NAACP was founded in 1909 by three Jewish men. Educate the black man so that he gets pissed off and takes it out on the white man. While both of those fight the Jews take everything in sight when the blacks and whites are fighting and not paying attention. It has gone on since the dawn of time and is the reason that the Jews have been kicked out of almost every country on the planet.

Oh, goddammit, there goes another one.

You had to go and blab about us Jews. Couldn't keep quiet. Had to talk about our evil plans of world domination.

You know what that means. We have to send one of our mind control/brainwashing experts over to your house now. See what you made us do? Do you even know how much mind control/brainwashing experts charge by the hour? They don't come cheap, y'know. Do you have any idea how tough it is to manage the budget for a shadow government? This is very inconsiderate of you.

Well, congratulations. Now I have to break out the checkbook, and update your file. Thanks a lot. This was supposed to be my day off.

Just sit back on the couch, and wait for our guy, and this'll all be over soon. He's turning the corner of your street. He's driving towards your house. Getting out of the car. Grabbing his brainwashing kit. Walking to your door. He's almost there.....

Mwuh-ha-ha-ha-ha....



[edit on 8/5/2009 by Nightflyer28]