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

reply to post by Electro38


godlike productions bans entire provider populations. comcast is my provider and no one who has comcast is allowed in unless they get some kind of special permission. pretty silly if you ask me but it's their strategy.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by ken10

 

the attack site warning is put there by google who is making every effort to protect obama from negative comments. i have visited that site many times without difficulty. you might ask yourself why they need to go to so much effort to protect obama if there is no truth to these allegations.

I dunno someone claimed it was attacked by hackers... if that was the case, it shouldn't be trusted...

so which is it... attacked by hackers and shouldn't be trusted or never attacked by hackers and is able to be trusted?

Hrmmm?

reply to post by MissysWorld


In the spirit of open mindedness I visited your link at your request.
(BTW, I visited from your link with no warning.) Thanks.

This sentence strikes me as a bit odd:

That said, I’m not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate –

So she is not in ACTUAL POSESSION of document nor has seen it?
Am I missing something? Sorry if I seem dense.





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

reply to post by kinda kurious


I saw that too and wondered if she had actually written those words or if someone else had.

Very interesting...

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by MissysWorld

 

In the spirit of open mindedness I visited your link at your request.
(BTW, I visited from your link with no warning.) Thanks.

This sentence strikes me as a bit odd:

That said, I’m not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate –

So she is not in ACTUAL POSESSION of document nor has seen it?
Am I missing something? Sorry if I seem dense.





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

As far as I can tell she is saying she has a copy of the Kenya BC, which is the one Obama's Mother had to have for her divorce. The missing page 11(correct me if I am wrong) would have been the original, and since it is missing, she has not seen it...
BTW..to those who still get "Malicious" when clicking on her site..the site is fine..try deleting your cookies, clean your temp files...)

[edit on 5-8-2009 by MissysWorld]

Sorry, I had to re-read her blog.

Strangely, first she says:

When I started looking at the date (Feb 17, 1964) on this new Kenyan birth certificate, I immediately started comparing .........

Then a paragraph or two later.....

. . . That said, I’m not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate –

Is it a language / translation thing? (Not being facetious here.)

Sure I could assume she meant to say "actual / physical" but I'm trying not to assume. Just reading her words as written.



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

Originally posted by Electro38

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Electro38

 

Berg is a dem

Who's Berg? I had to edit my last post. I said the dems would be calling for his docs, meant to say repubs.

BTW, I have voted independent, repub, and dem based on who I thin is smarter over the years.

I thought about voting for McCain for a few months, until he became "Bush-like" and picked that poor lady to be his running mate.

I might be wrong but I think I see a lot of bias and hypocrisy with this so-called movement.

In my opinion it has little to do with the constitution. But that's just some guy's opinion.

Phillip Berg is the democratic lawyer who, I think, started all of this.

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-1933

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Sure I could assume she meant to say "actual / physical" but I'm trying not to assume. Just reading her words as written.

Could be that or it could mean that the picture she posted was what was given to her and not an actual document. That would explain why she's filed a motion in court to have the documents requested and authenticated from Kenya instead of hiring an expert to authenticate the one shown in the picture.

Just a possibility that occurred to me when I read your post.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by MissysWorld

 

In the spirit of open mindedness I visited your link at your request.
(BTW, I visited from your link with no warning.) Thanks.

This sentence strikes me as a bit odd:

That said, I’m not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate –

So she is not in ACTUAL POSESSION of document nor has seen it?
Am I missing something? Sorry if I seem dense.





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

So she doesn't actually have a copy of the Kenya Frogery?

What could she possibly have submitted to the courts?



[edit on 5-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

www.pr-inside.com...

Orly is going to jail, once she comes back from Israel, if she ever does come back from Israel.

reply to post by GingerR


Yep.... I'd have to agree...

And this is the great thing about free speech, once you bring the law into it... you are going to be held liable to the court for wasting their time.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I was right, she submitted the picture that she posted online with her motion. Or a copy of it anyway.

From Page 8 of the motion:

Exhibit A: Unauthenticated Color Photocopy of Certified Copy of Registration of Birth from the Coast Province of Kenya District of Mombasa District Registry Office Office of the Principal Registrar Republic of Kenya, issued on the 17th day of February, 1964

So that was what she meant when she said she hadn't seen the actual document. She was given a picture of it and she submitted that picture to the court when she requested the document itself be requested and authenticated.

reply to post by Jenna


Ok, so she doesn't actually have the actual document.

I tell you what... she's a rather gutsy gal for submitting a photo of a document and releasing it publicly.

I'd *never* do that. Myabe it's because I spend to much time on ATS?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by GingerR


How does a news conference calling for a grand jury to determine the validity of claims Obama isn't a natural born citizen and the authenticity of the Kenyan BC mean that Taitz is going to jail? That doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I agree, if nothing else she's got guts. I'm not sure I would go public with something like that either unless I knew for a fact that it was real. If there was even a chance it wasn't I'd submit it to the court for verification, but no way on earth would I release it to the public before it was verified.

Too much time on ATS probably has quite a bit to do with it.



EDIT: Not having the actual document also explains why she didn't scan it before posting it online.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Jenna]

reply to post by earlywatcher


That's weird?
I have comcast and haven't been banned.
Maybe you should try again.

Orley is definately taking a big chance but, win or loose a lot of new eyes are opened now!
I don't think she left herself in a position to get any charges brought against her. She's pretty smart.

reply to post by Jenna


Forgive me if I've missed this, but who has the actual BC then? I'm a little confused now as to what's going on. So Orly has submitted a photo of an Australian document purporting to be a Kenyan birth certificate (most likely)?

And now she wants to subpoena whomever has this supposed certificate to be verified as actual evidence?

Is that even possible?

I could see a judge granting the motion or whatever if there was other court admissable evidence that he was born elsewhere, but considering no court has accepted the case or upheld any of the 'evidence' produced by Orly, I don't see how it's possible any judge would seriously grant this request...it seems frivolous.

And GingerR, I glanced over the link provided about Andy Martin but I'm confused about how it could apply to Orly and jail time for her. Could you (or someone) elaborate?

Thanks!

reply to post by Jenna


she can't handle things the normal way because the courts won't touch this material. they don't want to acknowledge it exists, let alone validate it. her only chance is to generate enough public interest that people will exert pressure on the court system to deal with it. so far it hasn't worked.

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


admittedly it's been awhile since i tried! i used to be active on that forum, then they changed management and changed so i went away. later why i tried to go back i learned i was banned, and read that providers including mine were banned. maybe i just need to clean out my cookies and try again, as someone earlier suggested about orly's site.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


I'm not sure honestly. I thought she had the actual document until Kinda Kurious pointed out what she said on her blog about not having seen it, that's what made me think maybe the picture was all she had. So I checked the motion to see what exactly she had filed as an exhibit since I didn't look at the last page when I read through it before.

We don't know that it's based off of the Australian document, it could be but we don't know for sure. And the motion requests that the court order Clinton to submit to a deposition and that the actual document be requested from Kenya through appropriate diplomatic channels as well as by the court itself. If Kenya does in fact have the document on file, the motion requests that it be authenticated.

So the motion doesn't say that it's real, it says that there's a possibility that it is and that it needs authenticated. Requesting authentication isn't frivolous, it's necessary if there's even a possibility that it could be real. If it is, it needs to be authenticated. If it's not, then whoever forged it needs to be found.

______________

reply to post by earlywatcher


That is a very good point. I'd say most judges are more concerned with possibly ruining their careers if they even hear the case. That would explain why they keep using lack of standing as a reason not to hear any of them. If enough public interest were generated, judges wouldn't think they'd lose their jobs over it. So generating more public interest is probably the best chance Taitz has to have her case heard and her motion granted.