FAQ ON BARACK OBAMA’S HIDDEN BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Last updated Dec 4, 2008

This FAQ is a collection of questions and answers from many sources including newsgroups, blogs, emails and not necessarily prepared by us. There are still many questions not included here because of lack of time.

If you have more FAQ, better if you also give the answer to your question, please send to obamabirthfaq@gmail.com .

Instead of the repetitive arguments all over the internet, use this FAQ instead to narrow down the controversy question by question.

This FAQ is meant to guide you in your own quest for truth behind Obama’s mysterious birth certificate.

You don’t have to accept the answers but hopefully you will see both sides of the coin and you will be aware of the issues or questions involved.

Click on this link to view Obama’s computer-generated SHORT-FORM birth “certification” (not “certificate”).

---

Question:

Before I start reading this lengthy FAQ is there a brute force resolution, a Gordian knot solution to this so-called Barack Obama birth certificate controversy? Why all the fuss about his birth?

Answer:

1. Yes, there is.

2. This can be resolved in ten minutes if Barack Obama authorizes the release of a copy of his so-called LONG FORM (or “vault”) Certificate of Live Birth, that original document that shows where he was born, in what hospital, time and date, the attending doctor, name of parents, whose signatures appear in the document etc..

3. This is called LONG-FORM COLB for the purposes of this FAQ.

4. In all the countries in the world, it is this LONG FORM birth certificate that is the “best evidence” and the “conclusive proof” of birth.

5. In other words, the normal birth certificate that anybody presents when applying to school, for a passport, or for a school age group baseball league.

6. So far Obama has shown only the SHORT FORM which is a computer-generated secondary evidence that is derived out of the original source document which contains minimal information. Of course, the original source document, the primary document, is the LONG FORM COLB.

7. It is this refusal by Barack that is the source of this controversy.

8. What’s complicating the issue is that even Barack’s Kenyan grandmother has admitting in a taped interview with an Anabaptist bishop that she witnessed the birth of Barack in Kenya.

Question:

What is this Barack Obama birth certificate controversy all about?

Answer:

The purpose of this FAQ is to give detailed explanations as to each factor or bone of contention regarding Barack Obama’s birth circumstances.

But instead of delving directly into details, here is an overview of the contentions. Throughout this FAQ we will provide links and attachments.

This overview of the contentions should give you an idea of what questions to ask and how to form your own conclusions. At this stage, view the forest not the leaves.

1. There are many cases currently in the courts questioning the circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth. Five are now with the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

2. One was by Philip Berg was a former Deputy Atty General of Pennsylvania, and a Democratic Party leader (same party as Obama!). Not an ordinary lawyer.

3. The case of Donofrio vs. Wells is very interesting because Donofrio maintains that just by being born to a Kenyan (British) father, Barack is not a “natural born” citizen. (It is scheduled for conference by the US Supreme Court on Dec 5, 2008.)

4. Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu but he or his own relatives gave different names of hospitals in different interviews (Queen’s Medical vs. Kapiolani, which is which?)

5. Obama has shown only the SHORT FORM of his birth. Acdg to Berg, anybody can be registered in Hawaii at that time 1961 with certain conditions. The SHORT FORM is computer generated.

6. Berg and the others who have filed cases want to see the LONG FORM or vault version which shows the name of the doctor, the parents, the weight, the thumb marks etc.

7. Obama refused. Why does it take a US Supreme Court petition to show the LONG FORM? The SHORT FORM has been used by OBAMA for a long time but now when asked to show the LONG FORM he refuses. And yet he ran for President and even won. Why is he refusing to settle his citizenship issue?

8. Is OBAMA a natural born or a naturalized? Only Natural Born citizens are qualified.

9. Yes, OBAMA's US Citizen mother is a US Citizen but if Obama was born abroad such as Kenya, and her mother was only 18 at the time of birth, then according to US laws in 1961, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

10. In several interviews (up to you to believe it) Obama's paternal grandmother recounted how Obama was born in Kenya, she was even in the delivery room. During those interviews, apparently, Obama's relatives in Kenya didn’t realize that NATURAL BORN citizenship was required of Obama in his quest for Presidency. They didn’t realize how damaging that information is to Barack.

11. One interview involved a Baptist bishop and minister and they recorded it and executed notarized affidavits for it.

12. Supposedly, Obama's mother was refused a flight from Kenya to US because she was pregnant, so she delivered Obama in Kenya first.

13. Some claim to have certified true copies that Barack was born in Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa Kenya at 7:24pm Aug 4, 1961.

14. Obama's half-brother and half sister were supposed to be there too during the delivery.

15. Obama has not shown his own document that gave such details of his supposed birth in Honolulu.

16. The Hawaii State government refused to allow anybody to view the LONG FORM.

17. An Imam from Mombasa Kenya was said to have arrived in UK bringing with him the documents of the Mosque archive that blessed Obama when he was born. The Imam is the grandson of the Imam who blessed Obama. The Imam is supposedly requesting UK asylum bec he took the documents from the Mosque and feared for his life.

18. Berg's case was dismissed in the lower court because he lacked standing (not the proper party to raise the issue). Berg is contesting this. If a voter cannot be certain about the qualifications of the US candidate, who can? Because Berg’s case was dismissed on a technicality (lack of proper standing), there was no trial on the merits.

19. Why isn’t Obama, the champion of truth in the most powerful nation on earth, being truthful by showing who is the doctor who delivered him, what was his weight, and who signed his birth certificate? What hospital was he born in?

20. Even in Third World countries, you cannot even enroll in Grade 1 without an authenticated birth certificate (LONG FORM) show all the data including the weight, the doctor, the hospital. Why not the same transparency from the US president elect? This is a question of constitutional qualification and therefore a legitimate issue.

21. A film producer (School of Rosary Films) has offered US$1 million to anybody who can present a US SC authenticated LONG FORM birth certificate of OBAMA.

22. OBAMA can claim this $1million by allowing his jobless homeless half-brother in Kenya to show Obama's LONG FORM. His brother will get the million dollars, or Obama can give it to charity.

23. Any student of law, and a student of investigative journalism should be curious: who is the doctor that delivered Obama, in what hospital, at what time, and what was his weight, and who of his parents signed the birth certificate? This is from the LONG FORM, not the computer generated SHORT FORM.

24. Note: This issue has nothing to do with Obama's skills as President of the US, nor his race. Just imagine yourself as a law student or an investigative journalism student: Wouldn’t you want the best evidence - the LONG FORM certificate of birth of Obama?

25. If you are the President of the US, as chief enforcer of the laws, the law should not be used to cover the truth, it should be used to uncover the truth.

26. These are the bones of contention, and as you read this FAQ, keep the above issues in mind.

Question:

Does it matter if Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii?

Answer:

Even IF Obama produces proof that he was born in the United States, according to Leo Donofrio's case, he is STILL INELIGIBLE because he was a British Citizen at birth. (Donofrio vs. Wells is now with the US Supreme Court.)

This is already an established FACT.

Obama held British Citizenship from birth to the age of 21.

Obama was ineligible to run for President the second he was born, regardless of where he was born because his father was British.

The framers of Constitution of the United States did NOT want somebody with dual citizenship to be President, unless they were alive during the signing of the Constitution. This is clear constitutional interpretation. Obama was NOT alive then.

Donofrio's case will be in conference at the Supreme Court on December 5th.

The question is, "Will the Justices interpret the Constitution correctly the way the Framers had intended?"

Question:

Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, but his mother was an American citizen, therefore, Barack is a natural born citizen, regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii. So what’s the fuss all about? Surely, Barack is a natural born citizen!

Answer:

Very good question, and perfectly logical reasoning. And this is where many people are confused.

In 1961, when Obama was born, just by having one parent as an American citizen does not automatically grant citizenship to the child (not even a “naturalized” status, how much more for “natural born.”

The law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth was different than it is now.

Barack father was an alien being a Kenyan citizen. Barack’s mother was an American citizen. However, since she was only 18 years old at the time Barack was born, then she did not pass on US citizenship to Barack. Not even a naturalized status.

This is the contention of Philip Berg in his case that is now pending with the US Supreme Court.

Don’t forget that this was the law at the time of Barack’s birth, and not the law today.

Thus, being born in Kenya is a very very important factor in determining whether Barack is natural born or not.

And it is also very critical to inspect his LONG FORM CLOB because the SHORT FORM does not reflect this.

Plus, do not forget Obama’s relatives and many in Kenya know this as common knowledge that Barack was born in Kenya.

Later in this FAQ, we will tackle a Baptist minister who interviewed Barack’s Kenyan grandmother, and later on interviewed the Civil Registrar of Mombasa, Kenya who confirmed the existence of Ann Dunham’s delivery of Barack in Kenya.

Under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the act in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth, the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(7) "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."

This proviso in this act does not apply to Barack Obama, because his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, was not yet 19 years of age at the time of his birth.

Since she was only 18 at the time of Mr. Obama's birth, she would not have passed citizenship on to Mr. Obama. In 1961, citizenship could only be passed on to a child where one parent was an alien should the citizen parent have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, five of those over the age of 14.

Just having a mother as citizen does not mean automatic citizenship. That is why the LONG FORM of the CLOB is very important being called the "best evidence" in law. The passports, the SHORT FORM are not the best evidence but mere secondary evidence.

Question:

Where was Barack Obama born?

Answer:

Barack Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961 and shows a computer-generated SHORT FORM which is a “certification” of live birth but not the actual “certificate” of live birth.

This claim has been challenged in several court cases but Obama adamantly refuses to show his LONG FORM which is the real birth certificate.

The basis for this challenge is that there are indications that Barack was born in Mombasa Kenya. One of these if Barack’s own still energetic paternal grandmother who on a few occasions, including a taped interview as current as Oct 16, 2008, that she was present at the hospital when Obama was born.

More FAQ on alleged Obama’s birth in Kenya, follows.

Question:

Granting that Obama was born in Honolulu, as he claimed, in which hospital was he born?

Answer:

Nobody is certain as to what hospital Obama was born.

First Answer: Queen’s Medical Center Honolulu

Source: Obama’a own half-sister Maya Soetoro (in 2004)

Charter School’s The Rainbow Edition Newsletter, Vol 2. Issue 3, November 2004 written by Bennett Guira, a colleague of Maya Soetoro.

Barack Obama was born on August 4,

1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in

Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama lived here with his

parents Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham

until they divorced when he was two. Obama

moved back to Hawaii when he was ten and

lived with his grandmother Madelyn Dunham

and half-sister of our very own, Maya Soetoro.

They both attended Punahou School together

when they both lived here.

Ms. Soetoro explained, “He’s my

brother. We share the same mother, though our

fathers are different. His father was Barack

Obama Sr., a Kenyan economist who met our

mother at the East West Center. My father was

our mother’s second husband after she divorced

Obama. Soetoro was from Indonesia and in the

late 1960s the family moved to the island of

Java where I was born.”

Click on this link to get a copy of the newsletter.

Second answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

Second Answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

Source: Maya Soetoro (Obama’s half-sister); fours after the Rainbow interview

On Febuary 18, 2008, in Vol. 13, Issue 49 of Star Bulletin, in an article by Laurie Au:

Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who has been

campaigning aggressively in Hawaii and on the mainland,

shared stories of her older brother's childhood as a way to

connect to local voters.

"This is a place that's been relatively unchanged for him, and so

much of who he is was born here," Soetoro-Ng told a crowd of

about 200 people eating "OBAMAsadas."

"He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women &

Children, two blocks up from where our grandmother still

resides ... the place where he used to stick orange peels under

his bed, where it got all dried out and ... nasty."

Click on this link to get a copy of the news item.

What is the real answer? Nobody knows for sure because this name of hospital is not found in the SHORT-FORM but only in the LONG-FORM.

The SHORT-FORM is not the mate proof of birth or citizenship. To settle this, Obama will have give his LONG-FORM.

But so far he has refused to do so.

Question:

Are there indirect proofs that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

Answer:

The World News Daily (WND) found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

Anybody can have an advertisement published especially if he is trying to establish a paper trail for citizenship purposes.

Question:

If it is true that Obama was born in Kenya, then how come he has a registration of birth in Hawaii?

Answer:

Registration of live births under the vague laws in Hawaii in 1961 is not proof of birth in Hawaii at all.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.

Registration of birth is not the same as Certificate of Live Birth (LONG FORM) because as mentioned earlier Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

Registration of live births under the vague laws in Hawaii in 1961 is not proof of birth in Hawaii at all. Read the laws on the books in Hawaii for registration of births in 1961.

This is what the law actually allowed in 1961.

"Certificates for children born out of State. (a) 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 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."

See links below for more about the relevant Hawaiian law. A computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) issued in Hawaii is not acceptable to even their own courts as conclusive proof of birth in Hawaii. Under Hawaiian law in 1961, a child could be born anywhere in the world and have the birth registered in Hawaii by the mother after the birth, with true or false information, without any third party independent verification of said "facts" entered on the form by the mother, upon her returning to Hawaii using this law on the books in 1961.

The following is the actual link to the Hawaii statute.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

Question:

But the Hawaii Director of Health has confirmed that Obama’s original birth certificate is with them! So that’s the end of it!!!

Answer:

Think like a lawyer, and talk like a lawyer.

Focus on what the Health Director is saying, and also on what she is NOT saying.

Here’s the statement:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other.

Having read the above, notice:

1. Fukino is NOT stating that the original birth certificate is a US birth certificate.

2. Fukino is NOT stating that is not a Kenyan birth certificate.

3. Fukino is only stating that a birth certificate (which could be Kenyan) is filed in accordance with the rules.

4. Fukino is NOT saying that Obama’s record is not filed according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

5. Fukino’s statement, therefore, does not rule out that Obama could have a Kenyan birth certificate but still filed according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

6. Fukino’s statement, also does not rule out registration of birth of a child born outside the US but registered in Hawaii.

That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.

That brief comment does not affirm whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a Certification of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

In Hawaii, a “Certificate” of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a “Certification” of Live Birth.

For births prior to 1972, a Certification of Live Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.

The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy of the original vault Copy.

Question:

Is there a difference between “Certificate” and Certification” of Live Birth?

Answer:

In Hawaii, a “Certificate” of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a “Certification” of Live Birth.

For births prior to 1972, a Certification of Live Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.

The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy of the original vault Copy.

Question:

What are the reasons given by Obama or his supporters for refusing to give the LONG FORM when a critical position such as Presidency is at stake?

The LONG-FORM of the CLOB of any citizen in the US is produced very easily when applying for a job or a membership in a golf club, or entering school.

Answer:

A. That the SHORT FORM enough;

B. That the LONG FORM is covered by his privacy

C. That OBAMA is unfairly being singled out to present LONG FORM when others are not required to do so

Question:

Is the SHORT FORM of the CLOB enough for Obama to prove his natural born citizenship for the very powerful position of President of the US?

Answer:

Obama’s supporters say, “Yes.”

But others say, “No” by reason of the Best Evidence Rule.

Under the Rules of Evidence, Obama must follow the “best evidence rule.”

The best evidence for proof of birth is the original typewritten LONG-FORM Certificate of Live Birth (CLOB) prepared in 1961 and not some computer-generated form.

For evidentiary purposes, the SHORT FORM of the CLOB is merely prima facie but not the conclusive proof of birth.

The Short Form is the secondary evidence because it is sourced out of an original document which is the Long Form.

So which is the best evidence - the “derived” document or the “source” document?

The mere fact that the short form is DERIVED out of some other document means that the source document is the Best Evidence.

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM or “vault” copy of the birth certificate.

The document that shows the weight at birth, the doctor the hospital the REAL PROOF OF BIRTH that is considered by law as the BEST EVIDENCE.

The ''short form'' and the ''long form'' do not have the same probative value.

We cannot just rely on Obama’s word that he is qualified, otherwise, that would result into an absurdity where the highest of office of land is occupied by a person who may not be qualified and does not show the LONG FORM proof of birth.

The preponderance of evidence and whether Obama’s privacy overrules a Constitutional requirement is a judicial question best determined by a trial on the merits.

Besides, if he is not compelled to produce his LONG FORM birth certificate, what prevents fraudulent people from falsely claiming to be natural born when they are not?

Obama is not being singled out. Every candidate will be required to show ultimate proof of birth as a requirement especially when challenged by a citizen.

Question:

Read the decision from the court of Virginia. It ruled that there's no material difference between the long form and the short form. The fallacy in your reasoning is that you assume the long form to be the best evidence and the short form to be secondary evidence, when in fact you have not established this to be the case. The short form is not simply a facsimile or reproduction of the long form.

Answer:

That decision of the Virginia court needs to be reviewed by the Supreme Court… if indeed it treats short form as the same in probative value as long form. (Go the end of this “answer” about this so-called Virginia decision).

The Short Form is the secondary evidence because it is sourced out of an original document which is the Long Form.

So which is the best evidence - the “derived” document or the “source” document?

In accounting forensics, the auditor has to look at the original receipt when such accounting summary is being questioned. Back to the source document.

When a doctor reviews the findings of another doctor, the former needs to see the original EKG chart rather than rely on the conclusions of the other doctor. Back to the source document.

When an election is being contested, the recount goes back to the original ballots. Back to the source document.

The mere fact that the short form is “DERIVED” out of some other document means that the “SOURCE” document, which is the LONG FORM, is the Best Evidence.

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM or “vault” copy of the birth certificate.

The document that shows the weight at birth, the doctor the hospital the REAL PROOF OF BIRTH that is considered by law as the BEST EVIDENCE...

Any court ruling that does not examine that document in court as evidence is not complete.

In short, nobody had proved that Obama is a natural born. All your arguments are based on Mr. This and Mr. That of Hawaii Health this and that.

Zero base - start with the basic: the proof of birth..

This is the search for the ultimate proof of natural born citizenship required, not by an ordinary law but by the constitution itself, upon which all laws must be based.

New Development…………… Hoax!!!!

ladyhawke112 | Nov 17, 2008 | Reply

This case was a complete hoax written by a poster named Wild Bill at obamacrimes.com.

Unless you can site a case number and/or post a link to a Virginia court site, you should admit this.

The slightest bit of research would have helped prevent this embarrassment.

This confirms the very questionable legal argument of the alleged case. It is a hoax, after all.

Wild Bill files suit in Virginia

This case is kind of funny. To begin with I can't find out WHO this Wild Bill is. Hard to find any information on this on the internet. I keep finding the same two letters and nobody to vouch for them. The funny thing is that this is the only case that seems to get answered in addition to being thrown out. There's some pretty compelling arguements, but like I said, nobody is coming out and endorsing it, that I can find.

*

October 22, Wild Bill files case

o

Wild Bill, apparently wanting to remain anonymous, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

o

Letter from wild bill found at PeoplePassions.org

*

November 3, Virginia State Court throws case out

o

State argues declares the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president

o

State answer issues raise regarding Obama's citizenship

o

Letter from Wild Bill found all over the internet

Since I've posted this, I'm still getting feedback that this case didn't really happen. I can't verify any of this. I don't have time. If anybody can get me some conclusive information on this case, that would be good.

November 15, 2008 - I recieved an email today from attorney that is really in the know and she also has not been able to discover any concrete information on this case. There is alot of speculation that none of this actually happened.

I recieved the following email regarding this case:

Message:

RE: WILD BILL CASE

I too believe that this case is a "fake case" based on the following:

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.html -- Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. -- and no case was reported.

2. I contacted Judge Stout's Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/Richmond/home.html). The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

============

While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the "facts," I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research - which you can verify yourself - for your consideration.

Question:

Releasing the long form will do more harm than good. It violates the privacy of Obama's health record (protected by HIPAA law). It will expose his parents to ridicule (for example, what if they were incestuous, or what if Obama was the product of rape?). What does this information have to do with establishing citizenship? It's totally irrelevant. It only satisfies your voyeuristic appetite.

Answer:

There is a conflict between the right to privacy and the proof of natural born citizenship. Surely, the candidate has the burden to prove he is qualified, the people cannot just rely on his word, or on his scanned copy of a computer-generated SHORT FORM.

On the contrary, the LONG FORM is very relevant. It is the legally accepted conclusive proof of birth according to the Rules of Evidence.

The right of privacy of the individual (with respect to his proof of citizenship) is ipso facto waived in favor of proving that he is constitutionally qualified for run for the Presidency which requires him to be a natural born citizen.

When a candidate runs for public office he files an application for candidacy, and this is a public instrument for review by the public.

When the office requires a specific requirement which in this case is “natural born citizenship,” then the candidate must prove he is qualified.

The burden of proof lies with the candidate. In case of doubt as to the candidate’s qualifications, the latter must provide the evidence, the best evidence.

The best evidence of proof of birth is the LONG FORM or vault certificate which is the actual document signed by doctor, the parents or witnesses giving the time of birth, the weight at birth, the hospital where he was born.

The SHORT FORM, while useful in most instance, is still a secondary evidence and not the primary or best evidence of birth.

The SHORT FORM is a computer-generated document and can be assailed anytime when a proper inquiry is required. The SHORT FORM is a “derived” document. It is derived from the LONG FORM or vault copy.

The filing of candidacy being public, the supporting documents such as proof of natural born citizenship must be provided and also becomes public. The private individual, by running for public office, ipso facto, waives his privacy with respect to the specific instrument that proves his natural born citizenship.

We cannot just rely on his word that he is qualified, otherwise, that would result into an absurdity where the highest of office of land is occupied by a person who may not be qualified but does not show the LONG FORM proof of birth.

His other private files can remain private.

Question:

Releasing the long form also sets the bad precedent whereby every voter (who must be a US citizen to vote) will now be questioned as to his legitimacy and will now be required to dig up his long form prior to voting. This can be used to disenfranchise millions of minority voters. Imagine in California where there are so many immigrants. Many are naturalized US citizens, and their kids are natural born citizens. They will have to dig up their long forms to prove their citizenship status before they can vote. In doing so, they will be exposing their confidential health information to the public. This will intimidate potential voters and keep them from voting. Anti-immigrant politicians can move to question the votes of these people and steal the election.

Answer:

Non-sequitur. It does not follow. This is a fallacious argument.

The question is not about VOTERS being asked to prove being natural born. Your analogy is incorrect.

The point is about a candidate for the most powerful position in the world that requires the President to be a natural born citizen as required by the constitution.

As soon as the candidate provides his best evidence of proof of birth, which is the LONG FORM or vault certificate, then nobody can question that anymore.

Except where the LONG FORM was simulated or fraudulent in the first place, and evidence is given that indeed the LONG FORM was obtained with fraud. Example, is a case where a grandmother simulates birth and claims to be the mother of the newborn when in fact it is her teenage daughter who gave birth.

It must be noted again that the SHORT FORM is a computer generated form and not the best evidence of proof of birth.

All that Obama has to do is to prove that he is qualified. He has to prove it to the voters, not the other way around. He is the one claiming to be qualified.

So far, he has not given any legally defensible proof. The SHORT FORM is prima facie evidence NOT conclusive evidence according to the jurisprudence and the Rules of Evidence.

Question:

It is only you who insists that the long form is the only acceptable proof of US citizenship. Where you got this idea is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Well, not really. You got it from the internet (cut and paste articles).

Nowhere is it written that everyone should present their long form to prove their US citizenship. The short form has always been adequate. The court in Virginia has already ruled that the short form is equivalent to the long form. Besides, the long form is not in the possession of anyone but the state health agency. If the agency says it has Obama's long form and it is valid, what more do you want?

You can't force the agency to break the law and disclose Obama's long form and violate his privacy just so you will know what Obama's birth weight, blood type, health condition etc etc was at the time of his birth. These are all confidential health information protected by law and has no bearing on citizenship status.

Answer:

It is not enigma, it is not cut and paste, it is remedial law.

And yes, it is written in the US Constitution that the President of the US must be a natural born citizen, and yes the long form is required because that is the best evidence proving birth.

The SHORT FORM while tolerated is STILL NOT the best evidence and therefore in case of doubt it is the LONG FORM that resolves the issue.

I can understand why you insist on stopping at the short form as an acceptable proof of citizenship because you do not have a formal background in remedial law (evidence).

For you, the ''short form'' and the ''long form'' have the same probative value. That the Short Form is enough.

But are you sure? But what if the short form does not reveal information which is very critical but can only be gathered from the long form? Such as the actual hospital where Obama was born?

What I mean is that there are medical angles to a birth and there are remedial law aspects to a birth.

Why are there RULES on EVIDENCE?

It is to prevent people like the defenders of Obama (who insist on the short form) and Berg and Donofrio (who insist on the LONG FORM) to have debates on which kind of FORM is necessary and sufficient.

It is not to satisfy everyone, or even ONE SINGLE VOTER like Berg who as a citizen deserves to know with finality if their President has met constitutional qualifications.

The internet articles are irrelevant. Remedial law is now in the foreground. It is the best evidence rule.

Basic in remedial law: Mere tolerance of evidence (short form) does not elevate it to best evidence status precisely when the authenticity of the best evidence (LONG FORM) is being questioned.

So far, the US govt agencies have tolerated the short form for Barack but actually insisted on the LONG Form from other candidates in previous elections (read about these cases) for different elective posts.

Why this fiasco is happening shows that even a country as advanced as the US has legal loopholes. In many schools without the LONG FORM you cannot even go to kindergarten.

It is axiomatic in law that there is always a best evidence and in there's a secondary evidence and the training in law is for the student to identify which of the two are admissible. The best evidence are listed in the Rules on Evidence.

If a short form has been "tolerated" that is not the same as the "best evidence". It is still secondary evidence.

Just because it has been tolerated doesnt mean it cannot be assailed. The remedial procedure then is to go beyond the "tolerated" and to go the "real proof" which is the LONG FORM.

If you read in the internet several old cases of disputes being resolved by the long form (not by the short form) you would realize that there are many US cases where age qualifications etc have been proved only by LONG FORM.

Obama has not satisfied the minimum requirement which is natural born citizenship. And precisely since a question is raised he must answer it.

Why are there lawyers who insist that the SHORT FORM is enough? That's because they are defending one side of the debate.

Of course, all lawyers know the best evidence rule, but if you are defending one side of the case,

- you bang the table like hell to prevent the opening of the REAL PROOF.

- And attack the person and

- question the motives of the complainant.

One must look at it as a judge, not as a campaigner.

Some judges are biased too. They question standing, they raise technicalities.

But somewhere out there is the solution: LONG FORM.

But even as a journalist or as a law student, you will NOT be content with secondary evidence precisely when the best evidence is being questioned.

Ask any of your friend lawyers, or judges, mere "tolerance" of the short form does not elevate it to the "best evidence." status which is the real proof.

Thus, as of today, Obama has not met the minimum standard of proof which is the LONG FORM. all other forms do not have the weight of a LONG FORM.

It is basic remedial law.

This is not mere curiosity. It is proving that fact of natural born citizenship.

Question:

Barack Obama has been a Senator, surely he is citizen of the US?

Answer:

The citizenship requirement for Senator is not as stringent as that of the President.

The Senator position requires only “naturalized” citizenship. Thus, even the SHORT FORM which is merely computer-generated, may suffice.

However, it must be borne in mind that it is secondary evidence. If it has been tolerated as proof then that is acceptable, but when challenged, the candidate must prove his birth with the ultimate legal document which is the LONG FORM or vault certificate.

As for President of the US (POTUS), the requirement is natural born citizenship. This is precisely why the cases against Obama demand that he proves his citizenship by showing the circumstances of his birth because only these circumstances can prove if he was born as a natural born citizen.

Obama refuses to do so, and the voters are challenging his refusal.

Obama’s SHORT FORM may be acceptable for Senator but not for US President when there are voters who are requiring him to show his actual LONG FORM.

Question:

What are common transactions in the US that require a “birth certificate”?

Answer:

Obama's failure to produce a birth certificate is at odds with how most of America operates. A certain Mary did a little Internet research on this topic.

A birth certificate is required to do the following in the USA (many require "certified" copies of the certificate).

* Eligibility for a child to play in a soccer tournament or in a youth sports league

* Registration into the Maxxis National (4-cycle Karting) Championship race

* Enrollment in public school, including Head Start

* Application for a driver's license

* Admission to public institutions of higher education (universities)

* Marriage license (if under 21)

* Lifetime fish and wildlife license application

* Harvard Athletic Association – Baseball/Softball Registration (for Minors and Majors)

* Annual golf playing permit

* Eligibility for health insurance to cover dependent children

* Eligibility for children of students to live in campus housing with parents

* Application for accidental death benefits, state board of retirement (surviving spouse's birth certificate)

* Employment requirements for police department

However, it seems, a birth certificate is NOT required:

* to be listed as a candidate for and to be elected as the president of the United States.

Officials at a kids' soccer tournament need a certified birth certificate as verified proof of a player's age, but it seems the courts and the Congress are willing just to take information at a candidate's word. Seems to defy logic!

Real people in "real America" can't play in a soccer tournament, get health insurance, apply for a driver's license, or even get rights to play golf (on at least one course) without first showing their birth certificate, but politicians seem to be above all that is required of "real people." The Obama campaign even says it's "garbage" that people are filing suits demanding a look at Obama's certified birth certificate.

Well, for those of us living in everyday America, it's not "garbage"; it's just "real life."

The bigger question, of course, is: "Why won't Obama release his certified birth certificate showing the place of birth and the attending doctor?"

It's been fairly well proven the short version posted on the Internet for several months is not a legal copy of Obama's birth certificate, and it's totally apparent that the certificate that was posted is a shortened version of what a Hawaiian birth document actually looks like.

As you note, for someone who says he believes in transparency in government, sure seems Obama wants to keep this document away from public view.

Question:

I am staring at his COLB and at the bottom of the page, it says that this document constitutes "prima facie evidence of the fact of birth...".

Answer:

Again this is the tricky part when one is not formally trained in law.

But PRIMA FACIE is not the same as CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

You can search jurisprudence on what PRIMA FACIE is.

Again, this goes to show SHORT FORM is not the proof of birth, it is computer generated, it is derived from the LONG FORM, it is merely secondary evidence, and the search for truth regarding Obama's natural born citizenship does not end with the SHORT FORM.

Question:

But Barack Obama has shown his birth certificate?

Answer:

No he has not.

What he has given to websites are scanned copies of his SHORT FORM which is computer generated.

He has not even shown the embossed with official seal paper copy of the computer generated SHORT FORM to the public or the press to physically inspect.

He has only given it to website that are sympathetic to him.

There has been questions as to the authenticity of the scanned copies of the SHORT FORM because it has been shown to be doctored or photoshopped.

Besides, a SHORT FORM is not enough to establish citizenship specially when Obama’s citizenship is questioned.

The best evidence is the LONG FORM showing exactly what hospital and in what city or country Obama was born.

Question:

Don’t you believe “factchecks” or similar websites?

Answer:

Who are those behind those websites? Google check their benefactors. Are the supposedly independent websites really independent? The answer will surprise you.

The best evidence is the LONG FORM, any other document is hearsay.

The courts do not give any probative value to any scanned copy in a website.

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM.

Question:

Who has the burden of proof of citizenship?

Answer:

The person who positively claims such qualification of Natural Born Citizenship required for the position of the President of the US has the burden of proof that he qualifies.

The evidence needed is not the secondary evidence (the SHORT FORM certification which is merely computer generated) but the actual Certificate of Live Birth typed in 1961 and signed by the doctor, the parents, the registrar and shows the weight date hospital and all circumstances of birth.

Citizenship is a judicial issue. It is not within the power of the Health officials or clerks to determined whether or not Barack is a citizen. The agency’s functions are merely ministerial.

To prove citizenship, therefore, requires no less than the source document, the primary source, the conclusive proof of birth which is the LONG FORM.

Question:

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

Answer:

Here is the Electoral College site and see what it says about how a candidate is qualified. It says the Secretary of State for each State may be required to do so under State law. It then goes on to say that a challenge needs to be made in a letter signed by a Senator and House Member. Any citizen that questions Obama's credentials needs to start writing to their Senators and House Members demanding they review these records before it is to late:

http://www.archives.gov/federa...ions.html

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate's name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state's top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.

Under federal law an objection to a state's electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress's counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

Question:

Somebody must have seen the vault copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (LONG FORM), any rumors on what it contains?

Answer:

Of course, this is not admissible in the courts but read this transcript.

Listen to the Interview between Alan Keyes attorney (Gary Kreep) and his PR firm.

Specifically, listen to Part 2 of the Interview and fast forward to the 16:00 mark.

http://www.freedommarch.org/FreedomMarch_Radio.html

Here's a transcription of it:

"Joe? Can I break in for just a minute? Ok, Gary, I will tell you this much. I have a member in Hawaii who works uh... something like title research. You know what I'm talkin' about?

"He has actually seen Barack Obama's vault birth certificate. Dennis tells me that this vault birth certificate has nothin' but his mother's signature on it.

"It also shows that he was born in that uh... coast town... I can't remember what the name of it... Kenya."

Gary Kreep interjects, "Mombasa."

The toothless Bubba continues:

"Mambosa, Kenya. Right.

"Uh, he tells me that's why Obama will not release it and that's why nobody's gonna get it because when that comes out it's gonna show that he was not born in America.

"That this birth certificate is actually produced by his mother. There's no hospital uh, signature, no doctor signature, nothin' on it."

Question:

Why was the Berg vs. Obama case dismissed in the lower courts?

Answer:

Berg, a citizen, was not considered as having proper standing.

There was no trial on the merits.

Berg is raised the issue to the Supreme Court.

Berg argues that if he has not standing, as a citizen to inquire whether a Presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified, then who has? You? Me? Them?

Question:

Did Obama’s Kenyan grandmother ever declare that she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya?

Answer:

As late at Oct 16, 2008, two or three weeks before the election, she was interviewed over the cellphone by an Anabaptist bishop (in US) and minister (in Kenya)

Click here for a link to the notarized affidavits.

----------------------------- transcript below --------------------

Here is the youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo&feature=related

sara obama's cellphone reply.. (barack was born in Kenya)

with transcript .. use this ..

Kweli Shuhudia and Sarah Obama: Transcript PDF Print E-mail

obama_affidavit_of_kweli_shuhubia10302008corr_1_

ronmcraeaffidavitexhibitssarahobamainterviewtranscript

November 2, 2008

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, Transcript of Phone Conversation With Kweli Shuhudia & Sarah Obama

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Time: 10:40 a.m.

NOTATION: Mr. Shuhudia called me first on October 16th at 10:33a.m. and advised that he was with Sarah Hussein Obama and that she wanted to speak with me, but the connection was lost. He called me right back at 10:35a.m. and he informed me that there were several hundred people present, celebrating Obama's success. I questioned him about the format of the phone call and conversation with Ms. Obama, and then informed him that I would call him right back, so it would not cost him international charges for the call.

I called back at 10:40a.m. and public music and voices could be heard that were gathered around Kweli Shuhudia. I then spoke with him and requested that they utilize the speaker phone so everyone could hear. The speaker phone with its open microphone was utilized with Mr. Kweli Shuhudia, Mr. Vitalis Akech Ogombe assisting in the translation work and Ms. Sarah Hussein, along with several hundred people including policeman present and listening to the open conversation between the four of us for approximately 15 minutes.

A third unknown party can be heard periodically interjecting both Swahili and English words in the public discussion and conversation between the four of us. At times the room noise from other peoples' voices makes some of the swahili difficult to hear, and towards the end of the converstaion several men's voices are heard that are not identified.

From AT&T Monthly Statement of Calls:

110 WED 10/15/2008 8:18PM 814-629-5423 BOSWELL PA 1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

111 THU 10/16/2008 10:33AM 254726477700

INCOMING

CL

1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

112 THU 10/16/2008 10:35AM 254726477700

INCOMING

CL

1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

113 THU 10/16/2008 10:40AM 254726477700 KENYA ** 15 RM30 DT 0.00 12.32 12.32

114 THU 10/16/2008 10:54AM 610-662-3005

BALACYNWY

PA

2 ESM1 DT M2MC 0.00 0.00 0.00

115 THU 10/16/2008 10:56AM 610-825-3134

CONSHOHCK

PA

10 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

116 THU 10/16/2008 11:17AM 313-418-6959 DETROIT MI 1 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

117 THU 10/16/2008 11:18AM 313-418-6959 DETROIT MI 16 RM30 DT 0.00 0.00 0.00

118 THU 10/16/2008 11:33AM 254726477700 KENYA ** 2 RM30 DT 0.00 1.76 1.76

119 THU 10/16/2008 12:37PM 254726477700 KENYA ** 2 RM30 DT 0.00 1.76 1.76

120 THU 10/16/2008 12:41PM 814-242-9409 VMAIL CL 1 RM30 DT VM 0.00 0.00 0.00

121 THU 10/16/2008 12:42PM 254726477700 KENYA ** 10 RM30 DT 0.00 8.80 8.80

Transcript:

Two Rings:

Kweli Shuhudia: Hello? [Back ground music]

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae 2

Ron McRae: Brother Kweli? [music] Brother Kweli? This is Brother McRae.

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes.

Ron McRae: Okay. How are you today?

Kweli Shuhudia: Now. We are okay. How are you?

Ron McRae: I'm doing very well. You said you are there with, uh, Barack Obama's

grandmother?

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. I am just in the home now. She is right here. We're, we're waitingto talk in a uh long conversation. And [unitelligible] a good family and she is ready to talk.

Ron McRae: Good. She's not there at the present?

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. She's here right now.

Ron McRae: Okay. Is it possible to speak to her?

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. It is possible. I ah, along with her and her family, uh, you and me.

Ron McRae: Uh, is it possible for you to put her on the speaker phone and translate for

me?

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes! Yes! I will do that.

Ron McRae: Okay.

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes?

Ron McRae: Okay.

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. Go ahead [he then speaks to her in Swahili]

Sarah Obama: [Replies to him in Swahili]

Ron McRae: Ms. Obama?

Kweli Shuhudia: Yes go ahead.

Ron McRae: Mrs. Obama, my name is bishop Ron McRae.

Kweli Shuhudia: Ametaja bishop Ron McRae, Ron McRae. Go ahead.

Ron McRae: I am, I am the bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America.

Kweli Shuhudia: Yeye niaskofu Anabaptists makaisa.

Sarah Obama: Shikamooo! [Hello, good day].

Mr. Ogombe: Are you speaking English and , and we will tell her in Luo. Okay?

Ron McRae: Now give me that again. Explain it to me again.

Ogombe: It is welcome. She is very grateful for your interest.

Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae 3

Ron McRae: Okay. Thank you! Tell her I count it a great honor to speak to here since her son Barack Obama is running for President of the United States.

Ogombe: Eh makasema yuko kiuu mgomba Obama kwa mwenyekiti America. Yah, she says she is very helpful for got to you to please pray for Obama. She is asking you to pray for him. For Obama.

Ron McRae: Yes Sir. Uh...Ms. Obama, you can rest assured that I am praying for your son, for your grandson.

Ogombe: Yes. It is helpful also towards it is beginning to help.

Ron McRae: Okay.

Sarah Obama: [unitelligible from Ms. Obama because of room noise].

Ogombe: She says she is covet your prayers for he [unintelligible] her son.

Ron McRae: Okay. And tell her that I will be coming there in December and I would like to come by and meet with her and pray with her.

Ogombe: Yes. Ye atakuwa mwezi Desemba.

Kweli Shuhudia: In December. He will come in December and he wants to come and talk with you.

Sarah Obama: [unitelligible]

Ogombe: Oh she says you're so encourage her. Your coming in December so you can talk together with her.

Ron McRae: Amen. I am so thankful. Could I ask her, uh, about his, uh, his actual birthplace? I would like to see hi actual birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in December. Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in Kenya?

Ogombe to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].

Kweli Shuhudia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah she present when he was born?

Ogombe: Yes. She says, "Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born."

Ron McRae: Okay.

Question:

Now that Obama is ready for the White House, and he has selected his cabinet, has any White House journalist asked the Press Secretary point-blank about his LONG FORM?

Answer:

Yes, it has been asked but sidestepped.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Deputy White House Press Secretary Avoids Question About Obama Birth Certificate

In a press briefing this morning, Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto ended the briefing by overtly avoiding a question regarding President-elect Barack Obama's birth certificate and demands made by the CEO of WorldNetDaily that a long-form document be released.

From the transcript (video also available at the link HERE):

And Lester, and then we're done.

Q: Thank you, Tony. Two questions. There's been extensive media coverage of where the two Obama daughters will attend school. And my question: The White House believes that they should be able to attend the school their parents select without criticism because it's private rather than public, don't you?

MR. FRATTO: I think we support all parents making that decision.

Q: Good. The CEO of WorldNetDaily has called on the President-elect to release a birth certificate listing the hospital and names of parents. The White House believes that this would fully satisfy the constitutional requirement, don't you?

MR. FRATTO: I don't think I have anything to say on that, Lester, and I think we're going to end it right there.

Thank you.

The question, it seems, came from Lester Kinsolving, a journalist known over the past few decades for his off-the-wall questions while working as a member of the White House press corps. Still, with the recent news that the Kenyan Ambassador "confirmed" to a radio host that Obama was born in Kenya (personally, their questioning left much to be desired, and reminded me of the classic deposition question, "So, when did you stop beating your wife," in that it was designed to catch the guy off-guard), it seems that the story is gaining some traction.

Question:

Does Obama have a Kenyan birth certificate?

Answer:

So far nobody has produced any. But there are three major sources of stories about its existence.

1. Ed Hale’s statement (unverified) below.

2. African Press International’s story about the Imam who has in his possession original logbook of Obama’s birth blessing in their mosque in Mombasa Kenya

3. The notarized affidavit of Minister Kweli Shuhudia in Kenya who claims to have talked to the civil registrar in Mombasa who confirmed that birth of Obama has been recorded but kept under wraps unless th minister gets permission from the Atty General of Kenya

Elsewhere in this FAQ, the relevant statements will be handled.

Question:

So what was that Ed Hale claim?

Answer:

Unverified rumors. On the internet there are rumors about it, and this one comes from Ed Hale

http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3009070907/fetch/879567/

Ed Hale

Date Posted: Oct 11, 08 - 7:36 PM

IP Address: 98.20.52.126

State your in Texas

I guess the time has come to set the story about Obama Kenya Birth Certificate. I hosted Phil Berg on our No Obama Talk show on August 21, 2008. We then had Phil back on August 28, 2008. At that time I was contacted by one of the HCSFJM member by phone who told me that they were a importer/exporter and they had connection in Kenya. I talked to this person and also talk to Phil about it. We then discussed a plan on how to get the BC to the USA. We knew that Obama would do anything to stop this. We decide that Caren and I would be the decoy. We would announce that this BC would be shipped to Carens work place. Actually the BC was never coming to us. Our member was able to find the BC and it cost $1000.00 to get. There was 3 copies of the BC sent to the USA via 3 different carries to 3 different people.

HCSFJM had a member very near Phil and this was the primary target. I received a email on September 14,2008 from our member. The email said “The packages are on their way”. I knew that the

BC had been secured and was enroute to the USA. 3 days later I received another email that said “The package has been delivered”. I knew that our member had deliver the BC to Phil. In addition to Kenya BC, there is 3 certified statement from people who stated they were present when Obama was born. We are seek additional information at this time about Obama US BC. I have had a person who has looked at the “vault” book for Obama original BC form Hawaii. It does not exist.

All Phil Berg want is to have a court hearing and he will introduce that Kenya BC. I have a copy of that BC but I will not post it till I am cleared by Phil.

Do you remember when Phil made the statement on our show “He would talk to the real media which was us”. Now you know why we are able to get Phil on about any time we need him.

Very few people knew about this, Caren, Phil, our 2 HCSFJM members and myself. We had security on this that was unbelievable. No it is a matter of time before Phil get into court. Relax Folks, Obama will never be the president of this country as long as we have people who are willing to put their lives on the line for this great country. I will reveal in due time who those 2 great American (HCSFJM member) in due time. They must remain in limbo as of now for their own security.

I want to thank all of you for your support of this web site. Without you, this would never had occured. When I was talkign about starting a radio show, I had several people tell me I was crazy, but I guess the joke is now on them. I want to thanks the millions of people who listen to me and the gang every weekdday night. Today I am the proudest American alive

Additional info:

Ed Hale has Phil Berg on. Ed is saying that he had someone go to Kenya who obtained Obama's birth certificate (list hospital and witnesses). The person was taken off the bus, shot and his belongings along with the birth certicate taken from him.

Question:

What about that Imam who allegedly has the logbook of Barack’s birth and blessing in their mosque?

Answer:

API has not shown any proof but here is their statement.

The Imam who came forward to assist in the search of Barack Obama’s identity left Kenya secretly last night, and will arrive in the UK this morning. He will meet with a US contact person who will assist him in recording an asylum statement in the UK after handing over the documents that caused the blessing of Obama when he was born and to confirm the origin of the name Hussein.

The man will join relatives in the UK because his life will be in danger if he were to return to Kenya after removing the documents from the Mosque’s archives and taking them out of the country. The man has been informed about the on-going case filed in the US Supreme Court by attorney Philip Berg challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship.

When the man heard that Jerome Corsi was in Kenya a few months ago, he took a decision to try and meet him, but had to travel back to Mombasa from Nairobi on hearing that Corsi had been bundled and taken to the airport on deportation orders.

The Imam is the grandson of the late Imam who blessed Barack Obama when he was born in Mombasa on the 4th of august 1961.

While in the UK, the Imam and the American contact person will visit Amnesty International before handing himself over to the authorities where he will formally deliver his application for asylum. The contact man has arranged so that they get an official from Amnesty international to accompany them to the home office desk where he will inform them on he dangers that will face him if he were to return to Kenya after delivering the documents on Obama.

This may now bring to close the speculations on Obama’s citizenship and the secrecy on where he was born.

API will dispatch a detailed letter in support of the Imam’s - application for asylum and protection - to the UK Home Office Secretary later today. The letter will be made available on the site here, but minus the names of the Imam.

African Press International

Question:

Has anybody else confirmed the existence of Obama’s Kenyan birth record? What was the affidavit of Minister Kweli Shuhudia?

Answer:

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND KWELI SHUHUBIA

I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows I am an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya. I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa, working with the American bishops sitting upon the Continental Presbytery of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa. I am fluent in Swahili and in English. I am a former teacher in Kenya, and travel extensively in the ministries of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa throughout Kenya, Uganda and the Sudan.

It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya. Senator Obama’s grandmother still resides in the village of Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu City.

We removed the conversations with Obama’s grandmother but here is that portion where he said he went to Mombasa shortly after meeting Sara Obama

I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar.

I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled.

The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama,Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’sOffice and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information .

The above related facts are true and verifiable to the best of my personal knowledge before God Almighty, whose I am and whom I serve.

Question:

Why does Donofrio think that both Obama and McCain are not natural born citizens?

Answer:

Donofrio’s statement:

On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue. While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion - that Obama is not eligible - I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”. It is “national law” which is controlling. I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.

And I did enjoy Judah’s article above. He has obviously done much research. But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject”.

There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.

FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.

Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:

“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens’.”

Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795

This leads to the second point of error.

SECOND MISTAKE: Failure to properly analyze common law.

Congress having repealed the”natural born provision” leads to the core problem in Mr. Benjamin’s analysis. Naturalization only concerns people who were, “at birth” not US citizens.

People born in other countries as citizens of foreign powers, but who immigrate to the USA are naturalized. Naturalization has nothing to do with citizens like McCain who are born abroad to American citizens and are US Citizens by statute “at birth”.

Naturalization also could not cover Obama who was (we assume) born on United States soil (Hawaii).

But at the common law, naturalized citizens WERE considered to be “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS”. At the common law, the act of naturalization returns them to birth and they are effectively reborn to the allegiance of the King.

The best case which explains this concept is “United States vs. Rhodes” which Mr. Benjamin does quote but fails to mention the case citation, which is always important because it provides the reader the chance to see the context of the quote discussed. And this is very important. Here is what Benjamin quoted from Justice Swayne’s eloquent opinion:

“Justice Noah Haynes Swayne was around when they wrote the XIVth Amendment and the Equal Rights Act of 1866 and in 1866 he said this:

‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’ “

And this appears to back Mr. Benjamin’s core thesis, that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the common law definition thereof, which may be true, but that in itself is NOT the main reason Obama isn’t eligible. The common law is not our national law. Our national law is the Constitution. We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.

And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isn’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible. The reason for this lies on that part of Justice Swayne’s opinion which Mr. Benjamin did not quote. Here is Justice Swayne’s relevant quote:

“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject. [**26] Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)

The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1. For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.

If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”. If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.

Mr. Benjamin correctly points out that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.

But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that. The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”. And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesn’t follow common law. The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.

Obama was not naturalized, and I do not make the argument above to say that naturalization laws apply to Obama - although they might if he were not born in Hawaii- but let’s assume he was. I make the argument above to show that the United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law. There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.

The first of which is precedent. In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.

And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:

“The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5. This was made clear by Madison’s article:

“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006

“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

CONCLUSION

All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic. Please do not assume I am bashing him. I respect his passion and research, but it’s not entirely accurate. And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), it’s important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.

Leo C. Donofrio

Question:

What are the cases filed with courts regarding Obama’s birth certificate or citizenship?

Answer:

There are several cases but the more famous ones are:

1. Donofrio vs. Wells (New Jersey)

Status: Set for conference on December 5, 2008 at the US Supreme Court.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

2. Berg vs. Obama (Pennsylvania)

Status: Comments from parties to be submitted by Dec. 1, 2008 ordered by US SC. Previously, dismissed at lower courts by Berg’s lack of standing (no locus standi); no actual trial on the merits conducted

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

3. Keyes vs. Bowen (California)

Keyes is a US presidential candidate on the California ballot

Status: Filed Nov 13, 2008; not resolved yet

1. Lightfoot vs. Bowen (California)

Lightfoot was a 2008 Presidential Candidate; Filed Dec 3, 2008

5. Martin vs. Lingle (Hawaii)

Status: Dismissed Nov. 21, 2008 at circuit court level due to lack of standing; no trial on the merits

6. Cort Wrotnowski vs. Bysiewicz (CONNECTICUT)

Status: Filed Nov. 2, 2008, dismissed; now at US Supreme Court Nov 25, 2008; dismissed by SC. Could be re-filed with another Justice.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

This link gives the status of other cases.

http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx

Legal Actions Across America:

There are strong allegations that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President according to the mandates of the United States Constitution. This is a synopsis of what is going on around the nation regarding Obama's eligibility to serve as President. If you've never heard about any of this, I encourage you to check out my What Exactly is the Hub Bub Page.

Legal Battle Across America for Over 3 Months

Phil Berg UPDATE 12/02 Pennsylvania Case in Supreme Court now!	Alan Keyes & AIP Electors UPDATE 12/01 California Case
Leo Donofrio UPDATE 12/02 New Jersey Case in Supreme Court now!	Joan Corbett UPDATE 11/16 California Case
Cort Wrotnowski UPDATE 12/02 Connecticut Case in Supreme Court now!	Christopher Strunk UPDATE 11/24 New York Case
Andy Martin UPDATE 11/26 Hawaii Case	Bryan Terry Sr. Georgia Case
Lt.Col.Sullivan North Carolina Class Action Case	Daniel John Essek UPDATE 12/01 Kentucky Case
Jody A. Brockhausen UPDATE 11/19 Texas Case	Darrel Reece Hunter UPDATE 12/01 Texas Case
Gail Lightfoot UPDATE 12/03 California Case	Steve Marquis Washington Case
?Unconfirmed reports Utah Case	David Neal Ohio Case
?Unconfirmed reports Florida Case	Carol Greenberg UPDATE 11/24 Ohio Case
?Unconfirmed reports Wyoming Case

Other cases that weren't cases:

Lan Lamphere Patriot Brigade Case	David Archbold California Case
Wild Bill UPDATE 11/19 Virginia Case	Dan Smith UPDATE 11/18 New York Case