Honolulu US Court Subpoena's for Obama's Birth Certificate

Originally posted by Kitilani
So, maybe now you can explain how this is a nice find. Explain to me how giving me the right to accuse you of a crime and then demand you prove your innocence by supplying me any private documents I request is a "nice find."

Sure, but first you need to understand the difference between you asking me or me asking you that question as private individuals as opposed to a person who is a public figure. You and I, since we are not public figures holding an office dont have to provide any documents to any person.

A public figure on the other hand is required to provide certain information.

* - They must be eligable to hold the office they are running for which means they are required to provide documentation to satisfy the eligability requirements, which in this case can be found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

* - They must meet the eligability requirements for each state / district / commonwealth / territory in order to appear on the ballot.

* - Public officials per supreme court as well as state rulings have established a lower expectation of privacy in certain aspects of their lives because they are public officals.

Questions concerning constitutional violations fall under a dual system, which means the Federal Courts as well as State Courts can hear constitutional violation cases.

Obama made many statements about his past and why he should be elected President. Its incumbent of the people as well as the media to verify those claims.

Besides, what good is this -------------------------------------------------------------------

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

------------------------- when you violate the Constitution in order to become President?

Another issue with your question is the phrase:

Explain to me how giving me the right to accuse you of a crime and then demand you prove your innocence by supplying me any private documents I request is a "nice find."

I dont understand how you and some others view this as a crime, because right now it is not. The actions so far have revolved around legal and FOIA requests to obtain the documentation of a public offical to ensure he is in fact eligable to hold the office he was elected to. President Obama is not the first politican to deal with this issue, and won't be the last.

If he cannot provide proper documentation to show he is eligable for the office, then it can go criminal and trigger an investigation along the lines of conspiracy to commit fraud in order to win an election as well as violating the constitution which would be an impeachable offense for starters (I wont bother to list out all of the possible charges, however Abuse of Power / Nalfeasence in Office are at the top of the list).

Enacting an executive order (EO 13489) in an effort to seal any and all documents that would be needed to prove his eligability status is another issue, and is a clear violation of the open records act / FOIA.

Long story short, ANY publicly elected offical has a watered down right to privacy when weighed against the public intrest, and that was established by Federal and State court decisions. Since the complaint revolves around the eligability to hold the Office of President, any US citizen can file a complaint for the possible Constitutional violation.

Another analogy -
When you drive your car and get pulled over for say speeding, you are required to provide a drivers license to not only prove you can legally operate the motor vehicle, but to also ensure your driving status is still valid.

That pretty much answers your question..

On a seperate note.
Is your response in this thread a devils advocate argument?

The reason I ask is how can you make the argument you just did in this thread, while in other threads dealing with Government you argue that they must answer to the people? You have been pretty vocal in threads that contain even the appearence of government corruption or misleading the public, calling for investigations and the arrest / fileing of charges against the culprit.

If your argument here is a devils advocate thats fine.

If it's not, is it your viewpoint that when you dont agree with something its a problem that must be investigated and people held accountible, and when you support something you ignore the problem?

Just curious...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Enacting an executive order (EO 13489) in an effort to seal any and all documents that would be needed to prove his eligability status is another issue, and is a clear violation of the open records act / FOIA.

This is incorrect.

Executive Order 13489 repealed, and is practically identical to, Order 13233 that President George W. Bush signed early in his presidency. Obama’s executive order, contrary to what Xcathdra implies, is more transparent than the previous executive orders dealing with presidential records.

On First Day, Obama Quickly Sets a New Tone

The transparency and ethics moves were set forth in two executive orders and three presidential memorandums; Mr. Obama signed them at the swearing-in ceremony with a left-handed flourish.

The new president effectively reversed a post-9/11 Bush administration policy making it easier for government agencies to deny requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, and effectively repealed a Bush executive order that allowed former presidents or their heirs to claim executive privilege in an effort to keep records secret. ...

Advocates for openness in government, who had been pressing for the moves, said they were pleased. They said the new president had traded a presumption of secrecy for a presumption of disclosure.

“You couldn’t ask for anything better,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an advocacy group that tangled frequently with the Bush administration over records. “For the president to say this on Day 1 says: ‘We mean it. Turn your records over.’ ” ...

“These executive orders are traditional for presidents — we did them the first day as have others,” said Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to President George W. Bush. “But he has decided to put a finer point on it by elevating a clear theme from his campaign, which was, ‘We’re not going to do business as usual.’ I think it’s a smart move, and the type of thing that the public wants to hear right now.”

It may not be the type of thing that Mr. Bush wants to hear, however. Experts said Mr. Obama’s moves would have the practical effect of allowing reporters and historians to obtain access to records from the Bush administration that might otherwise have been kept under wraps.

“Historians are overjoyed by this,” said Lee White, executive director of the National Coalition for History.

And, more importantly, even if Obama’s executive order set less transparent policies than Bush’s similar order, it still pertains to presidential records — papers, communication and documents generated during someone’s presidency and in their capacity as President.

In other words, it doesn’t apply to any papers or documents before Obama was President, like his birth certificate or college transcripts, or whatever else birthers whine about.

So contrary to what Xcathdra claimed, Executive Order 13489 does not “seal any and all documents that would be needed to prove his eligibility status” since it doesn’t even pertain to any relevant documents for that purpose, and it is not “a clear violation of the open records act / FOIA.”

Unless Xcathdra also contends that Bush’s similar Order 13233, or Reagan’s Order 12667 — the one Bush’s Order 13233 revoked — are equally “clear violation[s] of the open records act / FOIA.”

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Sure, but first you need to understand the difference between you asking me or me asking you that question as private individuals as opposed to a person who is a public figure. You and I, since we are not public figures holding an office dont have to provide any documents to any person.

No, actually you need to understand the law.

A public figure on the other hand is required to provide certain information.

* - They must be eligable to hold the office they are running for which means they are required to provide documentation to satisfy the eligability requirements, which in this case can be found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

* - They must meet the eligability requirements for each state / district / commonwealth / territory in order to appear on the ballot.

* - Public officials per supreme court as well as state rulings have established a lower expectation of privacy in certain aspects of their lives because they are public officals.

None of that means any candidate is required to show you or Orly or Corsi his private documents. NONE OF IT.

Questions concerning constitutional violations fall under a dual system, which means the Federal Courts as well as State Courts can hear constitutional violation cases.

Obama made many statements about his past and why he should be elected President. Its incumbent of the people as well as the media to verify those claims.

So you are saying that since he claimed he is eligible, he is now required to show you his birth certificate?
And the laws supporting this would be....?

Besides, what good is this -------------------------------------------------------------------

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

------------------------- when you violate the Constitution in order to become President?

Who violated the constitution? Sounds like you put your cart before your horse, didn't you? You have to prove the accusation before you can be punitive over it.

Another issue with your question is the phrase:

Explain to me how giving me the right to accuse you of a crime and then demand you prove your innocence by supplying me any private documents I request is a "nice find."

I dont understand how you and some others view this as a crime, because right now it is not.

How is violating the constitution not a crime...yet?

The actions so far have revolved around legal and FOIA requests to obtain the documentation of a public offical to ensure he is in fact eligable to hold the office he was elected to. President Obama is not the first politican to deal with this issue, and won't be the last.

The claim is that he was not born in Hawaii which would be a crime since he is the president and all. These FOIA requests are nonsense. Who the hell says you are qualified to judge the validity of his documentation anyway? Just because you do not believe he was born in Hawaii you do not get the right to violate his constitutional rights.

How birthers can justify tearing up the constitution in order to protect is more than beyond me.

If he cannot provide proper documentation to show he is eligable for the office, then it can go criminal and trigger an investigation along the lines of conspiracy to commit fraud in order to win an election as well as violating the constitution which would be an impeachable offense for starters (I wont bother to list out all of the possible charges, however Abuse of Power / Nalfeasence in Office are at the top of the list).

You know he is president right? Probably because he provided the proper documentation. You fail to show that he did not.

Enacting an executive order (EO 13489) in an effort to seal any and all documents that would be needed to prove his eligability status is another issue, and is a clear violation of the open records act / FOIA.

It is only an issue you made up or imagined because that EO does nothing to any of his personal and private records. It applies to records generated during his time as president. He was born way before he was elected.

Long story short, ANY publicly elected offical has a watered down right to privacy when weighed against the public intrest, and that was established by Federal and State court decisions.

Because you say so? Reality does not work that way. You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Since the complaint revolves around the eligability to hold the Office of President, any US citizen can file a complaint for the possible Constitutional violation.

And apparently they have been very busy doing just that. How is that working out so far?

Another analogy -
When you drive your car and get pulled over for say speeding, you are required to provide a drivers license to not only prove you can legally operate the motor vehicle, but to also ensure your driving status is still valid.

That pretty much answers your question..

Huh? How does that answer my question? I have never been required to produce a birth certificate or my college transcripts at a traffic stop. I am pretty sure that would be a violation of my rights. Not sure you know what analogy means.

On a seperate note.
Is your response in this thread a devils advocate argument?

The reason I ask is how can you make the argument you just did in this thread, while in other threads dealing with Government you argue that they must answer to the people? You have been pretty vocal in threads that contain even the appearence of government corruption or misleading the public, calling for investigations and the arrest / fileing of charges against the culprit.

Hmmmm. Better quote me once calling for any politician to release their private records or any citizen for that matter because I am pretty sure you just made that up too.

If your argument here is a devils advocate thats fine.

If it's not, is it your viewpoint that when you dont agree with something its a problem that must be investigated and people held accountible, and when you support something you ignore the problem?

Just curious...

edit on 7-7-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I am not sure what you think you have been reading so I have no clue how to answer to it. No, not a devil's advocate argument. I know the laws and my argument comes from reality. That is all. Your seems to come from making things up about violations of privacy, what that EO actually says, and what kinds of posts I write in other threads.

What's up with that?

She, nor the people pick the President of the United States.

Only the Electoral College picks the US President. THEY are the only ones who could demand a court to open up Hawaii's Records to see if Mr. Hussein Obama was actually ever born in Hawaii.....and if mommy was old enough at the time per Federal Law to give the kid US citizenship.


Unless you hear of one of the Electoral Voters bringing about a Court Case....ignore them all. That's what the Federal Judges have been doing.

reply to post by aptness


You need to do some more research -

44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

What is the PRA?

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

What does it do -

* - Defines and states public ownership of the records.

* - Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

* - Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.

* - Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

* - Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.

* - The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents..
* - Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

The PRA - 42 USC 2204 includes the following restriction on Presidential Records -

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Exception to the above restrictions -
The PRA - 42 USC 2201 Pertaining to personal records

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--

The portion being referred to that goes back to Obamas EO is this part -

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

President Obamas Birth Certificate as well as his Social Security information (and family geneology covered under a seperate subsection) all relate to his ability to hold the Office of President. Since those documentas had to be legally acknowledged when he filed his candidacy, and the fact he was elected, those are covered under the PRA.

They specifically go to whats described above - Direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory or other offical / ceremonial duties. If he is not eligable to hold the office, it very much impacts those areas.

Previous EO -

President Reagan -
Executive Order 12667
Issued by President Reagan in January 1989, this Executive Order established the procedures for NARA and former and incumbent Presidents to implement the PRA

President Bush -
Executive Order 13233
This Executive Order, issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, supersedes the previous Executive Order. The Bush Executive Order also includes the documents of former Vice Presidents.

President Obama -
Executive Order 13489
This Executive Order, issued by President Barack Obama on January 21, 2009, supersedes the previous Executive Order.

So you can essentially remove all of the EO's except for President Obamas EO. The EO's are pretty much similar with one small exception that is missing from Obamas that is present in Bush's EO - Specifically this part -

(c) The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking to overcome the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records must establish at least a ‘‘demonstrated, specific need’’ for particular records,
a standard that turns on the nature of the proceeding and the importance of the information to that proceeding. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974).

Not withstanding the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records, many former Presidents have authorized access, after what they considered an appropriate period of repose, to those records or categories of records (including otherwise privileged records) to which the former Presidents or their representatives in their discretion decided to authorize access. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services,
433 U.S. at 450-51.

What changed in Obamas EO -
Obamas EO removed the portion above - Section C, and replaced it with a vague application of "Executive Privelage". It also removed the phrase constitutionally based privileges, cvreating ambiguity as to what falls under what.

The EO also changed the manner in which current Presidential records are released.
Under Reagans and Bushs EO, the head of the National Archinve gets the request and notifies the Office of the President. The head of the Nation archive then follows established procedure to have those documents prepared and released.

Obamas EO again changed that portion and replaced it with this -

...Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the
NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents

So yes, Obamas EO removed all previous EO's and changed the meaning and intent. HIs EO is written in such a manner that leaves the President and only the President as the sole decision making authority. It changes the manne rin which a legal challenge can be made, noting that a Final court order is the end of the line.

His EO makes it pretty much impossible to gain access to any records that can be used to impeach any claims he has made.

reply to post by Xcathdra




It clearly says personal and medical records.

Tell me something and I want you to be honest. Do I have access to your personal and medical records since you have no EO yourself protecting them or are those documents already protected as private? Yes, I know he is the president, so what. I need to see any law that says his personal and medical records were not already protected as private.

Besides, it still only applies to while he is in office. He continues to generate personal and medical records while in office.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
President Obamas Birth Certificate as well as his Social Security information (and family geneology covered under a seperate subsection) all relate to his ability to hold the Office of President.

I don't agree with this. His birth certificate and SS information have NOTHING to do with his ability to hold the office. His eligibility was proven before he was elected. Not to mention that they are personal records and not "Presidential Records".

Originally posted by Kitilani
No, actually you need to understand the law.

Actually I do.. I wish you would learn the law instead of just using your opinion on how you think it should work.

Originally posted by Kitilani
So you are saying that since he claimed he is eligible, he is now required to show you his birth certificate?
And the laws supporting this would be....?

If you knew the law then you would understand that in order to file to run as President of the US, a candidate must file paperwork not only with the FEC, but each individual state. They must meet state requirements in order to be on the ballot, which includes paperwork that must be filled out that contain a variation of -

"Under the penalty of perjury the information provided on this document is accurate / correct"

Again, since he is a public offical running for elected office, his right to privacy in certain areas is not the same as a private person. You would know this if you understood the law.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Who violated the constitution? Sounds like you put your cart before your horse, didn't you? You have to prove the accusation before you can be punitive over it.

Hmmm... go back and try reading it again instead of just seeing what you want. I said whats the point in taking the oath to protect defend the constitution when the person is in violation of it?

Originally posted by Kitilani
How is violating the constitution not a crime...yet?

It is.. My reponse ot you was a response to your statement about how you or I can just accuse someone of breaking the law and forcing them to prove their innocence.

Using the example you did, which used private individuals who arent running for public office, is not the same as a person who is running for an elected office. They are covered under a diferent set of rules than you or I would be.

Originally posted by Kitilani
The claim is that he was not born in Hawaii which would be a crime since he is the president and all. These FOIA requests are nonsense. Who the hell says you are qualified to judge the validity of his documentation anyway? Just because you do not believe he was born in Hawaii you do not get the right to violate his constitutional rights.

Actually my personal belief has nothing to do with this thread. You and others like to skew the lines of a perosnal belief with that of providing facts to people who only want to see one side of an issue, their side, while you and the others ignore all other possibilities.

This is proven in your response in this thread, where you apparently support Obama, where in other threads if the government / person / agency does something you dont agree with, you go off on them and demand justice.
The term is Hypocritical on the off chance you were wondering.

Originally posted by Kitilani
How birthers can justify tearing up the constitution in order to protect is more than beyond me.

Care to point out how the Constitution is being torn up. Challenging the validity of a person who is running for public office is not a violation of local state or federal law. If anything, its a confirmation of what the founding fathers intendede - The people to keep tabs on the Government.

Again, your argument in this thread and others on similar topics are running contrary.

Originally posted by Kitilani
You know he is president right? Probably because he provided the proper documentation. You fail to show that he did not.

Im not the one who ran for office, and because of that im not subject to the court rulings that cover elected officals and a lowered level of privacy. Again if oyu knew the law you would know this. You would also know to stop trying to make a comparison of a person not holding any office and a person who is holding an elected office.

The laws are different. Also, its incumbent of the person who filed to run to be able to prove they meet the qualifications to run for that office. As I stated above it usualy entails a document they fill out (affidavidt actually) that requires them to acknowldge that the information they are providing is the truth under penalty of perjury.

Inquiring into the status of an elected ofifical is not an invasion of privacy nor is it against any laws or the Constitution. If you knew the law you would know any question about the constitutionality of a law or action can be challenged.

Originally posted by Kitilani
It is only an issue you made up or imagined because that EO does nothing to any of his personal and private records. It applies to records generated during his time as president. He was born way before he was elected.

If you knew the law you would atually know what your talking about. See my post to Aptness.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Because you say so? Reality does not work that way. You are wrong. Plain and simple.

No not because I say so. Because the Us Supreme Court as well as state courts say so. Not only do they say so, they say your wrong. - Plain and simple.

If you knew the law you would know this.

Originally posted by Kitilani
And apparently they have been very busy doing just that. How is that working out so far?

Because of Obamas EO its an uphill battle.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Another analogy -
When you drive your car and get pulled over for say speeding, you are required to provide a drivers license to not only prove you can legally operate the motor vehicle, but to also ensure your driving status is still valid.

That pretty much answers your question..

Huh? How does that answer my question? I have never been required to produce a birth certificate or my college transcripts at a traffic stop. I am pretty sure that would be a violation of my rights. Not sure you know what analogy means.

Again I see you like to tweak whats said in order to fit your argument. The premis is the same so pay attention. The President ran for and was elected President. In order to do that he had to show documents to verify he was indeed eligable.

A person driving a car must have a drivers license and his status be valid. If that person gets stopped, they are required to provide that information to verify that they are a valid driver and that their status is active.

If you dont understand the anology, get someone to help you out.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Hmmmm. Better quote me once calling for any politician to release their private records or any citizen for that matter because I am pretty sure you just made that up too.

Sweet... yet another obfuscation and twisting the word technique. In other threads you have gone off on the police as well as the government for the manner in which they acted, which in your opinion was corrupt, as thugs what have you. You demand they be held accuuntible for their actions. You have also supported the notion that any appearence of corruption should be dealt with harshly and the people behind it should be investigated and charged.

In this case there is an appearence of corruption / fraud that should be investgated to claear up. Except in this case since you support Obama, you have flopped your argument, as well as your ethics.
The question below stands since you decided to obfuscate like you normally do when called out -

If your argument here is a devils advocate thats fine.

If it's not, is it your viewpoint that when you dont agree with something its a problem that must be investigated and people held accountible, and when you support something you ignore the problem?

Just curious...

Originally posted by Kitilani
I am not sure what you think you have been reading so I have no clue how to answer to it. No, not a devil's advocate argument. I know the laws and my argument comes from reality. That is all. Your seems to come from making things up about violations of privacy, what that EO actually says, and what kinds of posts I write in other threads.

What's up with that?

So no, you arent going to answer the question then. Its straight forward and supported by the facts, namely yourposts in other threads.

If something is done you dont agree with, throw the book at them. However, if the same acusation is made against someon you support, your ethics change and you reverse the argument back to the people.

In this case, there is enough info present to warrant an inquiry into the eligability of Obama. Just as was done during the election process for John Mccain.

Funny how that gets ignored..
extra DIV