[nacht]

	Originally Posted by FranG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not a "conspiracy theorists," an investigator with questions. ;-)

By definition, a conspiracy theorist, since to believe anything other than that he is a citizen requires believing that there is a fairly massive conspiracy from outside organizations to make him president and cover up his past.

	The request form you posted is valid.

I would hope so. It is from the hawaii.gov website.

	This matches my experience where the form I completed for my personal birth certificate (birth year 1976 btw) which labels the official document and "vital record" a "certified copy." The term "long-form" birth certificate is slang, meaning that the entire document is desired. You are familiar that two forms of birth certificates exists in most, if not all states aren't you?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, who again does not offer an option to request such a document and does not create such a document. Further, it is clear that this document is in keeping with what you get when you request your birth certificate from Hawaii's government and that it is adequate for any situation where a "birth certificate" would normally be required.

	The valid passport argument is meaningless, as this is only circumstantial evidence. Nothing but the official "vital record" will do.

A valid passport, barring forgeries in the original documents (none of which are in evidence here), is sufficient to prove US citizenship by itself and act as a primary form of identification.

	Obama has released only circumstantial evidence. A certified abstract of a birth certificate, which there is circumstantial To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , is only "prima facie" legal evidence of the legitimacy of his birth.

Ah yes, this again.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Claims that go down to the borders are particularly tenuous, given that we are talking about a printed document from electronic records and the Hawaiian has already stated that the document is genuine and in keeping with their standards for record keeping.

Further, who exactly is "Techdude" and on what basis should we trust him? As near as I can tell it is an anonymous pseudonym with no real weight behind it. At least
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
attached his own name to his work.

	It's good for trivial matters where a birth certificate is required; i.e., registering your kids for school, but in court cases where the identity of one is called into question, only hard legal evidence will suffice - That judge knows this.

What has been presented by President Obama and his administration is "hard legal evidence" and sufficient for gaining a security clearance or a passport. It is a de facto proof of citizenship. What has been presented as evidence to the contrary falls extremely short of demonstrating that the documents are forgeries (your.

	You are correct here. The burden of proof is not on Mr. Obama. The issue that people have is that the courts are protecting him by choosing to stonewall on this issue by treating it as if it's solely a political issue with no legal merit.

Unless a case can be presented that includes actual evidence and keeps with the standards for evidence and standing for the courts, it has no legal merit. Referring to AOL online polls and the "general opinion of the rest of the world," along with assertions about the President being a wandering nomad--which is what has been happening instead--does not qualify as a strong legal argument that should be taken seriously and should be dismissed with prejudice.

Until there is demonstrable evidence--which "techdude" doesn't qualify as--then it is strictly a political issue.

	This merits of Obama's birth certificate raises a valid Constitutional question, i.e., that the office holder for the highest executive office in the land be a "natural born citizen," and all Constitutional questions are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and inferior federal courts.

There is quite strong evidence that he is a "natural born" citizen. Including announcements in the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, a birth certificate, and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, among other things. To quote Politifact: "In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States."

..and you say you aren't a conspiracy theorist?

	You're wrong here friend; courts do not destroy documents. The "long-form;" i.e., the "certified copy" of the birth certificate is a picture of the actual physical document that is stored in a vault somewhere.

I never claimed they destroyed it. I will claim that this is the document they give you if you request a certified copy, which is sufficient for obtaining a passport and works as de facto proof of citizenship.

	You more than likely received an abstract. An abstract is sufficient for most purposes where a birth certificate is required.

It is labeled as a certified birth certificate, has legal force behind it, and was sufficient for both security clearance and a passport, as well visiting other countries (back when you could still do that with a birth certificate).

	In my experience, the lady who initially fielded my request likely was not used to people requesting the "certified copy."

For what I needed it for, it needed to be a certified copy.

If you look at the Hawaiian request form it clearly states that it is a "request for a certified copy." The document President Obama has shown people and has released is equivalent to the document you get from filling out that form.

	Obama has only met the standards of past presidents because To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Again I repeat, Obama has broken no laws. The problem is that there is no law, where there should be, to be broken.

Under what definition of "natural born citizen" do you believe that President Obama does not qualify under?

	Me calling his behavior "questionable" is his moving to "dismiss" lawsuits which challenge his legitimacy as President. The only thing that could come of these lawsuits, if Obama is indeed legitimate, is that the judge will order the physical birth certificate, and not a copy or abstract, into the official record.

This is a regularly used legal tactic and is about par for the course in these suits. The lawyer for the defendant will move to dismiss the case, usually based on lack of merit (or they ask for a summary judgement). You can see it all the time if you bother to poke around with any case law whatsoever.

It minimizes expenses and the amount of work that they have to do, and from a legal standpoint is still quite strong.

	Obama's innocence would be confirmed, the "birthers" would look stupid, and this entire issue would be over and done with.

The "birthers" already are doing a great job of making themselves look stupid, by putting forth legal briefs that state nonsense like that the president "might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President" without evidence. To quote Justice Land: 'To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is "plausible on its face"' (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal).

If they fail to meet that standard, then yes the claims in court should be dismissed for lack of evidence.

	But Obama is spending money fighting the case.

IIRC most of the cases either haven't required his legal intervention (e.g., Rhodes v. MacDonald) or the legal fees have been returned after the suit was dismissed (for example, Rhodes v. MacDonald didn't cost Col. MacDonald anything, and the last line of the decision is "Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff." In other cases this is implied by the dismissal.).

Have any evidence whatsoever that this is not the case?

Now, that said, you seem to have a shaky grasp of how payments in the legal system work. If you think he is spending money on getting them dismissed, how much more do you think he would spend on letting all of this advance? Is he then damned if he does and damned if he doesn't? If it proceeds, the lawyers have to be paid. If it doesn't, the lawyers have to be paid. If he will recoup his costs both ways, why would he care? It also won't stop future lawsuits, so should his lawyers just let them all proceed?

	I consider that questionable behavior considering he has nothing to lose from the proceedings (assuming he's legitimate)

He's following the correct and commonly followed procedure for this sort of thing, yet you believe that he should follow a different procedure to prove his innocence, is that correct? Even when a lawyer who failed to advise Obama to do such would run the risk of losing his license to practice for not providing zealous advocacy on the behalf of his client?

	I do not have any evidence for this claim other than hearsay. These lawsuits against Obama are civil suits, and his attorneys are private attorneys. I could have no way of knowing this information unless either Obama or his lawyers reveal such to me. However, here's some To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for your review.

In short, you have no evidence except an accusation from World Net Daily that he has a lawyer (who is likely on retainer) who engages in appropriate zealous advocacy, and that lawyer works on cases which are being dismissed by the courts for lack of standing or lack of evidence, with the costs--to the best of anyone's knowledge--being refunded to the defendants by the courts.

[FranG]

nacht,

you've posted a lot of stuff, and I've posted a lot of stuff. Just so that we stay on topic, do you acknowledge that there can be more than one form of a birth certificate? yes or no? The "birthers" are asking for a specific form other than the one that they have seen.

My previous post references the language in the Hawaii Statutes; below is an excerpt from the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for the State of Illinois, the state of my birth.

Sec. 25. In accordance with Section 24 of this Act, and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto:
(1) The State Registrar of Vital Records shall search the files of birth, death, and fetal death records, upon receipt of a written request and a fee of $10 from any applicant entitled to such search. A search fee shall not be required for commemorative birth certificates issued by the State Registrar. If, upon search, the record requested is found, the State Registrar shall furnish the applicant one certification of such record, under the seal of such office. If the request is for a certified copy of the record an additional fee of $5 shall be required.

Again I repost the certification statement that appears on Obama's released birth certificate:

"I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health"

From Merriam Webster online:

copy -

1 : an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (as a letter, a painting, a table, or a dress)
2 : one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression; also : an individual example of such a reproduction
3 archaic : something to be imitated : model
4 a : matter to be set especially for printing b : something considered printable or newsworthy —used without an article <remarks that make good copy — Norman Cousins> c : text especially of an advertisement
5 : duplicate 1a <a copy of a computer file> <a copy of a gene>

duplicate -

1 a : either of two things exactly alike and usually produced at the same time or by the same process b : an additional copy of something (as a book or stamp) already in a collection
2 : one that resembles or corresponds to another : counterpart
3 : two identical copies —used in the phrase in duplicate

abstract -

1 : a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form; also : something that summarizes or concentrates the essentials of a larger thing or several things
2 : an abstract thing or state
3 : abstraction 4a

So all else aside for the moment, do you acknowledge that smaller in scope vital records are released by states?

[Night Runner]

FranG,
Forget about all the hoopla with Hawaiian birth certificates for a moment - what about the birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers? If Obama was in fact born in Kenya/USSR/Uranus, how would those birth announcements end up in press? That would require either a time machine or the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, with Obama predestined to become President - or a conspiracy with a time machine.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[FranG]

Nightrunner,

I never said he was born in Kenya. I actually don't know. But Obama could have registered his birth late; it happens. The paper could simply record all births on the island. I don't know and don't care really, as all of this is a red herring. The issue is where is the legal document, plain and simple. Why should we speculate with circumstantial evidence when we can be assured with genuine hard evidence. Obama doesn't have to show the public his birth certificate (long form) without a court order which is fine. But just so long as it goes on record that Obama denied an inquiring public the inspection of his official birth certificate, I think that speaks volumes about his level of integrity.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by FranG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But just so long as it goes on record that Obama denied an inquiring public the inspection of his official birth certificate, I think that speaks volumes about his level of integrity.

I'm too tired to google right now, but I'm 99.9% certain there was an official committee composed of independent experts who examined his birth certificate (or whatever the hell it is they use in Hawaii) and declared it to be authentic.

[FranG]

	Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm too tired to google right now, but I'm 99.9% certain there was an official committee composed of independent experts who examined his birth certificate (or whatever the hell it is they use in Hawaii) and declared it to be authentic.

So as always it comes back to the "just trust us" mantra. Has any of those experts made such a declaration under penalty of perjury? The Hawaii authority I believe stated that she has seen Obama's birth certificate in the vault, but I have yet to see her signature regarding this on a document.

The bottom line is this is a private matter unless the courts get involved, but they will not, and this is the problem. People can say anything, and this is best illustrated by politicians. They make campaign promises that they never seem to keep, and they often misrepresent factual information. But nothing ever happens because they essentially speak into the wind. But this doesn't fly under penalty of perjury, where one is held to account for the statements he makes, either under oath in a courtroom, or a signed statement which can be used as legal evidence in a courtroom setting. Until we have this, the public has not had full disclosure of the information surrounding the information regarding Obama's birth, and Obama is being disingenuous in this regard by releasing to the public anything less than the long-form; which amounts to full disclosure and total transparency.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by FranG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	nacht, you've posted a lot of stuff, and I've posted a lot of stuff. Just so that we stay on topic, do you acknowledge that there can be more than one form of a birth certificate? yes or no? The "birthers" are asking for a specific form other than the one that they have seen.

Let's be clear:

1) Hawaii only presently uses one form.
2) They only print one form on request for a certified copy.
3) There is no official mechanism in place to request any other form in the state of Hawaii.
4) The form that they do give you is prima facie proof of citizenship. Useful in all situations where proof of citizenship is required.
5) What the birthers claim to want is for Obama to prove that he is a citizen to their satisfaction, going above and beyond the legal requirements already in place for him to do so, and going above and beyond what any form anywhere requires as proof of citizenship.

	My previous post references the language in the Hawaii Statutes; below is an excerpt from the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for the State of Illinois, the state of my birth.

The state of Illinois is irrelevant here. The only laws that matter are those in Hawaii, and national laws.

	"I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health" From Merriam Webster online:

Question for you.

Is this document sufficient for proving citizenship?

That is the only thing that matters. It is a certified copy with a raised seal, and thus in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is all that is required to prove citizenship. It is prima facie evidence in a court of law. Full stop.

	So all else aside for the moment, do you acknowledge that smaller in scope vital records are released by states?

Hawaii doesn't. Your state might, but all evidence indicates that Hawaii doesn't and thus this document--incorrectly called a "short form"--is the only one you get, and is sufficient in and of itself for proof of citizenship in the absence of evidence.

Evidence that thus far you have been unwilling or unable to provide.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 10:06 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by FranG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The bottom line is this is a private matter unless the courts get involved, but they will not, and this is the problem.

Present evidence sufficient to overrule the evidence on the table and make the case that you have standing to raise the question as a citizen of the US.

Unless you can do that, the courts will rightfully dismiss the cases that are not plausible on their face.

	Until we have this, the public has not had full disclosure of the information surrounding the information regarding Obama's birth, and Obama is being disingenuous in this regard by releasing to the public anything less than the long-form; which amounts to full disclosure and total transparency.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, he has released sufficient evidence to prove that he is a natural born citizen. This is further corroborated by historical archives of newspapers from around the time of his birth.

What is your evidence to the contrary?

[FranG]

Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's be clear: 1) Hawaii only presently uses one form. 2) They only print one form on request for a certified copy. 3) There is no official mechanism in place to request any other form in the state of Hawaii. 4) The form that they do give you is de facto proof of citizenship. Useful in all situations where proof of citizenship is required. 5) What the birthers claim to want is for Obama to prove that he is a citizen to their satisfaction, going above and beyond the legal requirements already in place for him to do so, and going above and beyond what any form anywhere requires as proof of citizenship.

Two things: 1) Why does the Hawaii State Registrar use the term "abstract" concurrent with "copy" if there is only one form, and 2) my previous post referencing the Hawaii Vital Records law suggest inferior vital exist. Does the language of the statute suggest otherwise to you? and did you even see this post I'm referring to? If not please do see it.

	The state of Illinois is irrelevant here. The only laws that matter are those in Hawaii, and national laws.

Very true. I referenced the Illinois law because I had spoke of my birth certificate earlier, and also to show that most of the states have virtually identical vital records laws.

	Question for you. Is this document sufficient for proving citizenship? That is the only thing that matters. It is a certified copy with a raised seal, and thus in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is all that is required to prove citizenship. Full stop.

Yes, the document is sufficient to prove citizenship, but not natural born citizenship, which is a requirement of whomever exercises the Office of President of the U.S. Birth certificates can be registered late, and they can be modified for accuracy as well. For example, many parents get birth certificates of adopted children changed to reflect their themselves as the parents of the adopted child. Again, check the Hawaii statutory law that I linked.

	Hawaii doesn't. Your state might, but all evidence indicates that Hawaii doesn't and thus this document--incorrectly called a "short form"--is the only one you get, and is sufficient in and of itself for proof of citizenship in the absence of evidence. Evidence that thus far you have been unwilling or unable to provide.

Again, the issue isn't citizenship. An illegal immigrant becomes a citizen upon naturalization after a certain period of years (for example Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). The issue here is natural born citizenship.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by FranG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Two things: 1) Why does the Hawaii State Registrar use the term "abstract" concurrent with "copy" if there is only one form, and 2) my previous post referencing the Hawaii Vital Records law suggest inferior vital exist. Does the language of the statute suggest otherwise to you? and did you even see this post I'm referring to? If not please do see it.

1) Don't know, don't care, when all available evidence is that this is sufficient for proving "natural born" citizenship. You'll also note the word "abstract" does not appear on the certificate itself or on the form for requesting it. It also states, quite bluntly at the bottom, that it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in a court proceeding. That is all that matters here.

2) It wouldn't surprise me if additional information is taken, but that isn't necessarily part of any "birth certificate" that Hawaii issues.

	Yes, the document is sufficient to prove citizenship, but not natural born citizenship, which is a requirement of whomever exercises the Office of President of the U.S.

The requirement of being a "natural born" citizen is somewhat fuzzy, admittedly, but if you are born in Hawaii in the year of 1961 you are a citizen by birth, on US soil. This seems to meet all normal standards of what "natural born" might mean.

At least as much as
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, who was born in the Panama canal zone.

	Birth certificates can be registered late, and they can be modified for accuracy as well. For example, many parents get birth certificates of adopted children changed to reflect their themselves as the parents of the adopted child.

1) When that happens, the original record is appropriately sealed but kept on file, and finding the form you are supposedly looking for wouldn't prove anything, since it would be changed as well.

2) This would not change the place of birth, which is still in Hawaii. Thus leaving him as a "natural born" citizen. Are you claiming that he was born outside of Hawaii, that the newspaper notices were fakes, and that the records were amended after his birth to move the location of his birth to Hawaii?

The level of this conspiracy is massive.

3) When such changes are made, such as for an adoption, it does not confer citizenship if such would not have existed through other channels. Children who are adopted by US parents are considered immediate relatives and thus can qualify for a permanent immigrant visa, but the child still has to be naturalized (this can be done through one set of channels before the age of 18, or another after that point, either way there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama did this or that his parents did this on his behalf).

	Again, the issue isn't citizenship. An illegal immigrant becomes a citizen upon naturalization after a certain period of years (for example Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ). The issue here is natural born citizenship.

Are you claiming he was naturalized after birth?