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.

 

Birthers are Wrong

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Here is the latest I found as of today on the issue,

1/o


www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

page 19... .....Given the latitude allowed under these territorial statutes a health official years later could say that they had seen a document that verified that the defendant Soetoro aka Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact such was not the case....


HI Territorial Law 57 (foreign born & HI B.C.'s) - Joint Motion Filled in HOLLISTER v SOETORO


I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE EFFORT TO THIS POINT

The appellant John D. Hemenway previously asked the Court to take judicial notice of certain matters of public and official record, including a statute of the state of Hawaii that was enacted in 1982, § 338-17.8 of the revised laws of Hawaii of that year, and which was entitled” “Certificates for children born out of state.”
...
We thus asked to the Court to take judicial notice of the fact the laws of Hawaii, as late as 1982, and continuing into the present day, allowed then and do allow to this day for a child born out of state to receive something called a “birth certificate,” even though the child was not in fact born in Hawaii but was born outside Hawaii. Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a “birth certificate” that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that assertion doesn’t prove that a child was born in Hawaii.
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not respond to our motion (It originally was filed by the undersigned on behalf of both himself and appellant Hollister) within the time allowed by the Rules of the Court for responding to a motion. On October 20, 2009, the Court, through the Clerk, issued a Show of Cause to the appellees Soetoro a/k/a /Obama and Biden because of their failure to oppose our first Motion for Judicial Notice with the time allotted by the Rules for a response, saying that the appellees were required to file and show by October 30, 2009
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not comply with the October 20, 2009 Order of the Court by showing why they had ignored the Court’s Rules and failed to respond to the initial motion for judicial notice in a timely fashion. They offered no reason for why they had ignored the Rules. Instead they filed a document which badly misrepresented both the law and facts of the historically verifiable meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and attacked the submissions that we put forward as not being eligible for judicial notice, with the single exception of the statute quoted above. As to that one request, our asking that the Court take judicial notice of the 1982 statute, they did not attack that statute and thereby admitted that it was deserving of judicial notice or at the least waived any right to object to it.
...
In that first motion for judicial notice when we pointed to the above-quoted law of Hawaii of 1982, which is now unopposed and thus acknowledged as appropriate for judicial notice by the appellees, we stated that it was the same as the laws of Hawaii in effect at the time of the birth of the appellee Soetoro/ a/k/a Obama. At that time we were unable to locate, either on the website of the state of Hawaii or in the law libraries of the local law schools a copy of the territorial laws as they were in effect at the time of Soetoro a/ k/a Obama’s birth before the major revision of the state of Hawaii’s laws in 1982. Since that time the undersigned’s support staff has been able to locate a set of those territorial laws of Hawaii as they were published with the authority of the Territory of Hawaii in the years before the birth of the defendant Soetoro a/,k/a Obama and as they continued in effect up through the year that he was born.

II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITY TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

We attach to this new motion for judicial notice a copy of Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics,” the law concerning these matters as it was in the Territorial laws in question. The statute of the Territory thus attached is from the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii 1955 in Three Volumes as published by the authority of the Territory of Hawaii by the Filmer Brothers Press, 330 Jackson Street, San Francisco, California. These three volumes comprise the statutes of the territory including the acts passed at the regular session of 1955 and the special session of 1956 as consolidated, revised and annotated. As can be seen, because we attach it also and request judicial notice thereof, these three volumes of the statutes of the Territory are certified by the chairman of the compilation commission of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 as appointed by the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii under Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953.
...

In our earlier motion we were wrong on one point, although the error is in the favor of appellants. The error that we made was due to our not at that time of the filing of the first motion being able to locate a copy of the territorial statutes as in effect before 1982. Upon locating and being able to review the applicable territorial statute we found that it was not exactly the same as the act set out in the major revision and codification of 1982, although similar. What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless. After an initial discussion of that authority we will then request additionally that the Court take judicial notice as a legislative fact of the Act which put into place the 1982 statute which is still in place and which replaced the territorial acts.
...

The specific Act of the state legislature which brought the attached territorial statute up to date and incorporated it into that Code was Act 182 H.B. No. 3016-82. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of that Act as thus passed in 1982 at this time. The actual Act 182 says, inter alia:

Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

In this way, to quote further from the Act, “state policies and procedures” of Hawaii accommodate even “children born out of State.”
...
V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE TO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGH NOT CERTIFIABLY BORN IN HAWAII

We believe that the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the attached territorial statute and, in doing so take judicial notice that there are ways that a “birth certificate” can have been obtained for a child under that statute that are allowed greater latitude for such a “birth certificate” to have been obtained that would be restricted under the present statute, so that the present statute allows for a child to have been born outside the state and still have been issued a Hawaiian “birth certificate,” but does so without the same breadth of possibilities for that having happened as was possible under the attached territorial statute.

For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created. Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus, although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for incomplete information.

This great latitude that allows for mistakes, misinformation, incomplete information and even abuse in turn extends into the requirements for what is put on the birth certificates, or required to be put on them, how they are to be kept and disclosed and all the other aspects of the system."

Complete motion, with HI Territorial Law 57 attachment, here:


www.scribd.com...


The finding of this law is important because it proves that there existed, at the time of Barry's (alleged, 1961) birth, a way for foreign born baby's to obtain a HI birth certificate.

Previously, only the more recent version (from 1982, found here) was widely know...and a 1911 (?) version I believe. This HI Territorial Law 57 was in effect during 1961. Now the proof has been found and added as part of the court record for the HOLLISTER v. SOETORO case.

So the next time someone tries to lie to you and say that no such law existed (allowing foreign born baby's to be able to obtain a HI b.c.) at the time of his birth...y

[edit on 123131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
can show them this,




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I know you consider this not to be a "credible" source,but I think you're a little biased anyway.(Just my opinion!)

For anyone else,doesn't this look a little more believable?

www.wnd.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge
For anyone else,doesn't this look a little more believable?
www.wnd.com...


No, just a fake, How pathetic are the birthers getting, how many more fake birth certificates will they produce?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


How come with all the money behind Obama they couldn't produce a faked one that was more realistic looking?(Here someone forgot to add the signature and the seal that normally would appear. Plus,it is so nice and new!)

www.hawaiitopia.com...

Then there's this familiar story about his grandmother saying he was born in Kenya,and it goes on to say two different documents list two different hospitals that he was apparently born in!

www.israelnationalnews.com...

QUOTE:

..."One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

...However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

...There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals -- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu.

...The Times Herald even reports: "the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country." Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family 'believe' he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama's Truth Squad?).


(Video clip available)


...Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center.

and here it says:

...Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center on 4 August 1961.

...So which hospital was it, or was he really born in Kenya? And why is this simple matter so confusing and disturbing? Do the search your self and plug in these key words:

...Obama born Queen's Medical Center and then Obama born Kapiolani Medical Center in a Google search. You will see he is reported to be born in two diferent hospitals. A miracle! Maybe he IS the Messiah (grin).

...What's so hard about knowing something so simple as which hospital or country someone was born in? And if it is simple, then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama just present the court with his original birth certificate to be analysed and proven? The onus of proof is on him, not the American public of which he wants their trust in him to be their leader.

So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister? Someone is."...


I don't think it matters to you if he is lying. ( But it matters.)



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge
I don't think it matters to you if he is lying. ( But it matters.)


If you had done a little bit of research all your claims have been answered many times before. Obama is the president, was born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen and nothing the birthers can do will change those facts



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
You know what I think?

This is an extension of what began during the election time, hack at the mans person and persona. However now this has become pathological, Muslim, Born somewhere else, Homosexual, Elite, Nazi, Socialist, black national, terrorist elbow rubber... Look at that list,
really go over it, just about EVERYTHING bad one can be as a POTUS and Obama is it.

How is that for you folks? we have picked the worst human alive for POTUS, possessing the worst qualities a president could possess, EVERY SINGLE ONE, less murder and molester...

Just this mass of evil alone should be sobering to any reasonable person. It has gone well into the realm of mythic fantasy...

I could not even imagine such a magical story and I have a very active imagination.

This campaign to damage his persona based on things that are not actions must be historic, truly amazing, of corse it is aimed at the block of folks that are susceptible,
the block of America that is a joke to the world. Crossed eyed and xenophobic, suspicious and small, easily swayed to war, supported unconstitutional pushes in the name of fear/freedom...

Edit
This is not aimed at the OP and other conservatives who still hold integrity and do not find prudent to throw their backs behind lies for cheap punitive thrills. I appreciate you guys for helping shut this never ending distraction up, you have many-a real issues to
use as proper ammo and I understand your concerns. So birthers hop on the reality express for the love of god, our country is screwed up enough, we do not need fake things to debate muddling up what should be our civic focus, ISSUES, ideas and solutions.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


Believeable?



Already found out to be a hoax, just like everything else that Birthers try to use to defame and unseat Obama with.

But do please continue with this theory, and please, get more Republican senators on board with you. I am serious, the more you get elected officials to go with this nonsense, the worse they will do this election.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by On the Edge
I don't think it matters to you if he is lying. ( But it matters.)


If you had done a little bit of research all your claims have been answered many times before. Obama is the president, was born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen and nothing the birthers can do will change those facts


No good reason for there being so many versions,huh?


Will you come up with the valid one then,because I've never seen it.

Post it,please.



[edit on 9-1-2010 by On the Edge]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


Ask and you shall receive.

whatukno.com...

Far more credible than WND. (honestly a homeless man ranting on the street corner is more credible than WND)

But it will tell you everything you need to know about this issue.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge
No good reason for there being so many versions,huh?


There is a very good reason, the birthers keep making forged certificates and keep changing their stories as each one is debunked


Will you come up with the valid one then,because I've never seen it.


You have not looked very hard /yg2vq2o



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by On the Edge
 


Ask and you shall receive.

whatukno.com...

Far more credible than WND. (honestly a homeless man ranting on the street corner is more credible than WND)

But it will tell you everything you need to know about this issue.



Nope. I want a credible source! You may be a homeless man who rants on street corners for all I know!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
 



And I would still be far more credible than WND!







..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 9-1-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
 


Is that the best you can do?







..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 9-1-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 



Is that the best you can do?


Well I am not gonna rip on you, after all, that sort of thing is frowned upon at ATS.

But this theory has been more thoroughly debunked than the Moon Landing Hoax theory.

But I support it. I hope that Birthers get a lot of Republican senators and representatives backing them. It would be fun to see a massive Democrat majority in both houses. I would love to see that. In a few election cycles, if Birthers keep going and keep getting Republican support, we may never see a GOP elected for our federal government again!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
 



So,are you going to provide a credible source to the "real" birth certificate or not?

(Republican or Democrat,doesn't matter to me,they all serve the same master.)





..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 9-1-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


The birth certificate
www.factcheck.org...

Commentary on this issue
www.snopes.com...

More commentary on this issue.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Or you could use the search function here on ats to go through the dozens of threads where this issue has been beat down again and again and again and again and again, having to go through the same proof over and over and over and over and over. But no, someone always comes along and says, hey I want to see the birth certificate, if he just shows the birth certificate we will shut up. We oblige, birthers always lie, they never shut up, they keep ranting and raving about Kenya and Bary and Indonesia, and this and that, linking to WND like it's the holy bible...

I mean it's fun and all, keeps me entertained for hours, but after a while you would think that people would research this stuff for themselves.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Not so credible either,but nice try.

From David Rochefeller,1991

..."We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years."

..."It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries." ...

You're the one who has been "punked"!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Or you could use the search function here on ats to go through the dozens of threads where this issue has been beat down again and again and again and again and again



There is no valid birth certificate, never was a valid birth certificate, never will be a valid birth certificate except in your little fantasy world. There is no point directing people to a fraudulent and forged 'certification', as that is not a valid birth certificate even if it were real. One would think that after so many months and thousands of postings that you would know enough by now to be able to accept this. Hell, you could even read storm dancer’s post a few posts back…but no, just more and more twaddle, over and over. But I suppose to have set up such a scam does rely on the utter stupidity of the general public, and in this they have succeeded.
The day that the truth does come out and someone is marched out of the white house in handcuffs before the very public trial…I will laugh until I lose bladder control.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
There is no valid birth certificate,


Yes there is, but racists refuse to accept it



Hell, you could even read storm dancer’s post a few posts back…


If you had bothered to read the threads here you would have seen where that was debunked...

Obama, a black man is the proper POTUS, and will remain so until his term expires. And no matter how much racists hate that, it will not change that fact!

[edit on 9/1/10 by dereks]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join