Mike S. is correct. It was Mike A. that suggested the motivation may be to prevent/remove a black man from holding office. -Mike A. added a disclaimer noting that he was not suggesting that was my intent.

Mike S.,

You are far too fast at judging others. I enjoy debating issues. I don’t enjoy debate for the sake of argument.

As I have stated in previous posts; I would be questioning John McCain’s natural-born status -if he would have prevailed. In fact, as I stated in a previous thread, I had dinner with one of McCain’s lawyers and discussed the same.

Perhaps this quote from Jefferson will provide you with some direction.

“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.”

bdaman,
When did I say that you didn’t want a black man in office, or that even this argument about the Presidents citizenship is about his being black? I didn’t and you can go back and look at what I’ve written to discover that. To then bring in “nigger” as if I’ve ever used the word and then add “F You,” is really way out of line. You don’t know me, my work, my long life and the causes I’ve put myself on the line for. All you know of me is what I’ve written here and nothing that I’ve written could be construed as anti-Black.

My point is that the birther movement is being financed by people who would try to make any Democratic President or Candidate illegitimate and I stand by it. I also didn’t accuse either of you three of conspiring to work together, but commented on how you have provided support for each other. Now I did at one point lump Jim in with the people who voted Republican in the last election and he replied that he
didn’t vote for McCain, which I’ll accept on his word and because it is irrelevant to my point. Later, on Jim castigates me for implying a conspiracy theory on you three, when that wasn’t what I did. I find it funny though because to me the entire birther movement is a real conspiracy.

To me there has been presented no credible evidence that President Obama is illegally in office and much credible evidence that supports it. The issue for the birther movement will not go away no matter what evidence is presented, because it is not about fact, but about de-legitimizing a Democratic President. A tissue of barely plausible theories and in Cook’s case duplicity to create an issue. To the extent that people support it I think you and the others are wrong and allowing yourselves to be used. I also think that when Jim throws in a supposed President Obama lie about how he met Michelle, he is merely clouding the waters purposely. Having read a lot of Jim by now I really do think that this is play for him and as such he can be quite disingenuous at times in presenting his viewpoints.

IS, on the other hand is quite specific as to what he represents and I agree, or disagree with him when our views meld or clash. I have done the same with you bdaman and with Jim for that matter.

Believe it or not. Dismiss it if you like. Someone knows. And hopefully someone will blow the whistle and/or leak the nature of the program or programs.

I’m just going to keep repeating it and hope that “the truth will out”.

Thanks for the “rebelreports.com” link, Jill.

Check out Jeremy Scahill for both Thursday and Wednesday. The story we’re being fed is BS. I’m sure the no geograhpical limitations is correct, along with many other unsavory directives. And I don’t believe it wasn’t operational either. I’m hoping for leaks, leaks and more leaks. It’s the only way this story will actually break open.

http://rebelreports.com/

No Geographical Limitations on the Scope of Assassination Program

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/16/report-no-geographical-limitations-on-cia-assassination-program/

ditto (If that word can still be non-partisan)

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/

I have a photocopy of my Certicate of Live Birth -the long form, and I also have a Certification of Live Birth.

People hire forensic investigators all the time without any “reasonable grounds”. The validity of evidence is regularly challenged. -Just because your side says it’s valid, my side is not required to accept the determination of your expert.

“what FACTS support the allegation that Pres. Obama’s birth records are false and fraudulent?”

The reported certification is stamped with a 2007 date. However, the request was not submitted until 2008. -reason enough?

Check out We the People

And the birth certificate is irrelevant, since the birthers insist against all law and precedent that a natural born citizen have two US citizen parents, so Obama can never be natural born. This particular discussion has exhausted almost all aspects of the topic, and the Cook case is moot and over.

Mike S., about the hijacking, it happened before at “Obama adopts Cheney” and at another thread that I have forgotten. I just tried to respond to birthere posters who chose the thread. Note that I redirected a health policy post away from here to the new health bill topic.

If we all agree, we can continue all these born discussions at the most recent natural born citizen thread, and direct any birther posters to our replies there, or to any other thread mutually agreed upon:
Eligibility Questions: Can Clinton Serve Obama and Can Obama Serve the Country?
Published 1, December 4, 2008:

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/

When I began to press the gentleman for certain details, he became agitated, as though I were questioning his truthfulness. This made me a bit nervous to be honest, because I had no idea what he might be contemplating should he not be taken seriously. I eventually convinced him that I had no reason to doubt what he told me, but that in order to really blow the case open, we would need a set of dental X-rays. I requested that he schedule an immediate dental appointment to have that done, arrange to have the results sent to my office and then have a follow-up meeting with me to discuss litigation strategy. He was very agreeable to that suggestion and left my office as a man on a mission. I never heard from him again.

Do you have any other conspiracy theories?

bdaman posted the first info about Taitz at 7:02 AM on July 14th
followed by BVM at 7:46 AM.

I didn’t join the discussion until 11:22 AM.

I think your the one playing games.

If I decide for whatever reason that you were stealing money from me, I could file an action against you for civil theft. But I can assure you that no court could enter an order sustainable on appeal requiring you to produce all of your financial and banking records based solely on a statement in a complaint that you stole money from me.

The original article initiating this thread gets hijacked because none of the three would want to continue to discuss the possibility of Cheney breaking the law and possible hit squads reporting to him, because it is so much more important that we figure out the existence of a seal on the President’s birth certificate.

The fact is that if there was a movie shot of the President’s Mother giving birth to him, under a sign saying Honolulu Hospital with a wall calendar giving the date, the birther movement would discredit it saying that it either wasn’t him, or it was a phony sign for a birth taking place in Kenya. Our three amigos would then chime in with supposedly serious objections as to how the movie had been faked.

They are hardly serious, but merely enjoy playing rhetorical games, with people like us who take these things far too seriously. I’m damned if I know why this is such fun to them, but the existential evidence is that they’re having a ball. I find it sad that the ability to discuss issues has deteriorated so much in the last fifty years, but it has. The curse of Ruppert Murdoch, that began with the purchase of the NY Post has taken control of the media and of the minds of many, who take governance with so little seriousness that they prefer to be governed by the propaganda of disharmony and
rhetorical phoniness.

“When I request certified copies of documents, they frequently do not contain raised seals.”

You didn’t request the reported Certification. President Obama did. He apparently did so in 2008. However, the reported Certification has a 2007 stamp on it.

“However, we cannot function effectively as a society if we are unable to rely upon certifications from the official custodians of records.”

We don’t know if that document came from the custodian of records. No custodian has ever stated that the document presented is the document sent by the custodian of records.

“If the bill were accompanied by a certificate from the U.S. Treasurer attesting to its validity, however, that would be acceptable everywhere.”

Fine. I’ll print out a certificate from the Treasury to accompany the bill. Does that make it valid, and not subject to fraud?

–We believe what we want to believe…as long as we believe the source. If you didn’t put your hands on it, you’re relying on others.

“The first inquiry is to whom is it an issue and why?”

It is an issue because it is a qualification laid out in the Constitution. It is the only office that requires such qualification. Unfortunately, the Framers considered that an honorable man would present proof. —Hell, I’ll even print up the request, and pay an fees….all the President would need to do is sign it.

I’m sorry, but President Obama has been far less than transparent.

With all the claims against Major Cook, we must recognize that President Obama has spent over a million dollars to hide the vault copy of his birth certificate. –Why? What doesn’t he want people to know? –If that isn’t a reasonable question, I don’t know what is.

“I would feel confident resting my case based upon the certified copy, affidavits from the Hawaiian officials and an authenticated copy of the newspaper birth announcement.”

Make that certified copy available to forensic experts. -You submit the evidence, and then we’ll get a chance to challenge its validity. -The officials from Hawaii have never stated that the information presented to the public is the same information contained in the vault copy. -Never.

This may all be moot today, but someone with standing will come forward.

Vince makes a valid point, what was your undergraduate degree?

That is just the problem. There is NO chance of a win.

BTW, posters, tangle with Mike Appleton on matters of epistemology and logic at your own risk.

Jim Byrne linked above to Orly’s APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [it is not a "petition"]:

QUOTE (38) Plaintiff points out that there was another time in United States history when officers of the military were forced to make a choice whether to follow the central government or their consciences. That time in United States history was in 1861 when some of the finest officers of the United States Army felt that they and their constitution had been betrayed by the central government, and that is how Mexican War heroes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, among so many others, became the leaders of the Confederate States of America.

(39) There were no lawsuits filed at that time—5 U.S.C. §702 and 42 U.S.C. §§1983-1988 had not yet been enacted. But the public interest is served by permitting Army officers to seek judicial protection and assistance when they question the legitimacy and authority of the commander-in-chief with regard to moral and constitutional issues.

(40) There are no “competing” governments now—no seceding states, however over 30 states have either passed or considered the bills of Sovereignty lately, which can be a step towards secession and a sign of vast dissatisfaction with the Federal government and the President.

(41) In historical hindsight it is easy to say the Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee hurt their own states of Mississippi and Virginia by supporting secession.

(42) In historical hindsight it is easy to say that even the pro-slavery cause might have been better served by acquiescence under Abraham Lincoln, who (absent secession and civil war) lacked any realistic legal power, as President in 1861, to interfere with slavery in any state or territory where it already existed. UNQUOTE

Huh? WTF?

In a California federal court!

Why?

Judge Robinson would not admit her pro hac vice, and she could not find ANY DC Bar member to join with her. DC has tens of thousands of members because it is so easy to waive in. As an unaccredited law school grad, she cannot waive in or even take the DC bar.

And that is just one paragraph of the complaint.

It is truly the gift of laughter that keeps on giving.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/292/story/779031.html

QUOTE Posted on Thu, Jul. 16, 2009

Federal judge dismisses reservist’s suit questioning Obama’s presidency
BY LILY GORDON

A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.

Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook’s suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.

“Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies,” Land said. “The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Cook arrived at the federal courthouse in uniform this morning for his hearing.

Outside the courthouse, before the hearing, Cook defended his controversial position and declared his devotion to the military.

“I love the Army and I want to continue to serve in the Army,” Cook said. “If we can establish that he is in fact president of the United States legally, I’m on the airplane the next day over to Afghanistan… if they cut my deployment orders, so I can do the job that I want to do.”

Cook said following orders made by an illegitimate superior could ultimately lead to his prosecution, or worse.

“If one cannot establish the validity and legality of the order … we would be following illegal orders and subject to prosecution,” he said. “I could be prosecuted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and if captured I would not be privy to protections under the Geneva Convention.”

Other soldiers have been supportive of his position, Cook said.

“I’ve received quite a bit of popular support from officers in my grade and some officers a grade above and some officers a grade below,” he said. “Thus far, I’d say about 90 percent positive.”
Cook was accompanied by his attorney, Orly Taitz, who has challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts. Two similar suits have previously been thrown out of federal court.

Ledger-enquirer.com will have more on this breaking story later this afternoon. UNQUOTE

You can get an injunction against your neighbor to stop him from chopping down your tree.

You just can’t get an injunction against yourself to stop yourself from chopping down your own tree.

The bottom line is that the birther controversy exists because the skeptics are requiring proof beyond what is necessary in a courtroom. It is not an answer to say, “If only the president would furnish this or that, it would resolve the issue.” The first inquiry is to whom is it an issue and why? If we were in trial, I would feel confident resting my case based upon the certified copy, affidavits from the Hawaiian officials and an authenticated copy of the newspaper birth announcement. If there were no competent rebuttal, I would win. Despite my repeated requests, I have yet to see any rebuttal, competent or otherwise. And I have certainly not seen anything substantive in any of Orly Taitz’ pleadings. In fact, I have not even seen a proffer from her as to what evidence she proposes to use to support any of her claims.

I am also bothered by your statement that we should keep Orly Taitz out of this. I strongly disagree. My experience has taught me that credibility is everything for a lawyer. When I make a representation to a court, the court is entitled to rely on that representation. If I have a habit of tossing out wild allegations, I am doing a disservice to the law and to my own reputation. I do not believe that her filings reflect well on the profession.

“A certified copy of a birth record is all that is required to establish the date and location of one’s birth.

what was originally reported to be President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth did not display the embossed state seal. The date (seen in reverse) was long before the date that the document was said to have been requested.

If I print up a $100 dollar bill, and it states that this document is legal tender…does that make it so? We don’t just accept money on face value. I don’t think the highest office should accept “because I claim such”. -Remember…to the best of both of our knowledge, the Presidents qualifications have never been filed with any legally recognized entity.

I’m not saying he is or is not qualified. All I’m saying is that, I think there is enough reason to question such, and the ability to validate the same is so easy that it makes no sense to avoid it.

I think President Obama is a gazillion times smarter than President G.W. Bush…I also know that smart people think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the average citizen. I also know that people don’t question those that they voted for…an inherent fault of being human.

–I did address the statements made by the Hawaiian officials. I don’t have enough info about the newspaper headlines to determine their validity.

“Finally, what documentation does the law require a candidate to submit as part of the process of qualifying to run for the presidency? Does it require anything?”

Unfortunately, and to the best of my knowledge…None. The requirements to be on the ballot are not the same as the qualifications to hold the office. -The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, seems to acknowledge that a president who lacks the qualifications can still be elected.

“Did Sen. McCain file his original long-form birth certificate with the House of Representatives or with the clerk of some federal district court?”

Irrelevant….but I doubt it.

As far as McCain’s qualifications go; people don’t discuss things that are not currently relevant. If he had won, I would have been challenging his qualifications too….And I think McCain is as patriotic a man who has ever ran for president. (political beliefs have nothing to do with patriotism)

I would also reiterate what Vince Treacy stated about Sen. McCain’s qualifications. It’s not something that I would ever lose sleep over, but there has been legitimate debate concerning whether he actually became a U.S. citizen until a statutory revision in 1937, a year after his birth. See, e.g., Spiro, Peter J., McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 42 (2008). I’ve never seen any debate over this issue in any conservative journals or web sites. My only reason for mentioning this is that I do not think that all of the fuss is related to preserving the purity of the Constitution as much as it is to preventing a black man from serving in the office. (BTW, I’m not suggesting that that is your motive, or even that you have any motive.)

“Does he still think Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1961? He hasn’t gotten back on that one.”

I don’t know. I don’t have the dates trveled, nor any information from Pakistan. -To simplify the argument, I’ll say no, as it is irrelevant.

“Does he still think the COLB is a forgery?”

I think it is suspect.

“Note also that I have maintained on this site that McCain was a natural born citizen.”

Our Constitution permits Congress to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. The non-binding Senate Resolution establishing such is beyond the power granted to Congress. The Panama Canal Zone was not a territory of the United States. As such, I don’t believe John McCain met the natural-born citizen qualification. -I think we need to amend the Constitution in order to address children of military personnel born overseas.

“What is the relevance of his meeting his wife to his natural born citizen status? If he did mispeak, or if the speechwrited mispoke, or he fibbed or lied, then it is certainly a fact to consider if he runs for reelection. But how does it affect his birth 20 odd years earlier?”

One lie means nothing by itself. When combined with evidence of being less than forthright, it begins to establish a need for increased scrutiny.

“How does he know about that microfiche? Does he think it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii, yes or no?”

On Oct. 31, after being inundated by requests for more details about Obama’s birth records, Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had personally verified that the Health Department possesses 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.

The cryptic and carefully-worded statement offered no true details of the “birth certificate,” and leads to more questions than answers among critics. In July, when Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth” was first distributed publically on the internet, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo simply asserted to the St. Petersburg Times, “it’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”

Although officials are on record that there is an original “birth certificate” held by the state, and that it is correctly filed according to Hawaii state directives. However, the specifics of the type of “birth certificate” records on file, with modifications, as well as the details and accounts of witnesses, is still unknown at this time.

“why did Cook seek a TRO or PI for a deployment that HE HIMSELF voluteered for, and which HE HIMSELF could have cancelled at any time? Why?”

The petition was filed in order to ask the court to provide relief from an order that was suspected to be illegitimate. An officer has a duty to ensure that any order is lawful. A rescinded order does not negate the fact that such an order was issued. Much like a drug dealer can’t buy back the drugs he sold to the undercover officer, and make the whole thing go away.

“The reasonable inference is that he wanted to set up a court case.”

I concur. Much like making a case against a drug dealer. One who does not meet the constitutional qualifications would not have the authority to issue that order. At minimum, it would be fraud to issue such an order. -Could it happen again? Yes.

“A student applies for Harvard and is admitted. Then he goes to state court for an injunction barring him from being admitted. Why?”

Irrelevant. Does a student at Harvard act on behalf of the United States Government?

very good last point. I think at this point in time the constitution has pretty much been used for the last 70 years as a document to effect change instead of an unbiased umpire.

As for the travel ban, who cares, we wont know where he actually traveled, can’t access his passport records and even if we could they have since been compromised. His selective service card shows forgery even though he didn’t need to file one and that has been authenicated by a retired federal agent with a real name. Where did those records come from? Chicago.

Do I think the COLB is a forgery? yes I do, just like his selective service. You continue to say that World Nut Daily says the COLB is not a forgery, then why do they continue to be the BIGGEST proponet for him to produce the original.

Hawaii has seen and verified that they hold Obamas ORIGINAL birth certificate according to state policy and procedures. He has spent(FACT) over a million dollars when all he has to do as the most powerful person in the United States is tell Hawaii to let forensic examiners examine it, Let them in the vault so they can say we’ve seen his certificate and we verify Hawaii holds it acccording to state policy and procedure. Similar to how they did the Shroud of Turin seeing how Obama is suppose to be the new Messiah. Recent (last six months) investigations have overturned the notion that the Shroud of Turin is from the 14th century.

So there, the most powerful person in the United States, the guy who taught constitutional law and graduated with the highest honors, was president of the Law Review aint smart enough to tell the good ol folks from Hawaii, hey let these independent guys into the vault just like Janice Okubu so they can have a look.

Let’s keep Ms. Taitz out of this. Determining what she would or wouldn’t due is pure speculation. I prefer to deal with what we do and do not know.

Information provided by politifact.org and factcheck.org are hearsay, and therefore not admissable.

So; we don’t know of any legal entity with which President Obama has filed his Certification of Live Birth as a document to support his claim of meeting the standard of qualification set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Since he won the election, and took the Oath of Office, it would be reasonable to assume that he has claimed to meet the qualifications for such office. Is not the burden on the claimant to provide supporting evidence? It is impossible to challenge evidence that has not been submitted, let alone the authenticity of such evidence. -Don’t you agree?

Our Constitution sets forth standards of qualification, but when the qualification is challenged, and no evidence is submitted to support that qualification, do we not have a Constitution that is merely a piece of paper?

The question is, why did Cook seek a TRO or PI for a deployment that HE HIMSELF voluteered for, and which HE HIMSELF could have cancelled at any time? Why?

The reasonable inference is that he wanted to set up a court case.

A student applies for Harvard and is admitted. Then he goes to state court for an injunction barring him from being admitted. Why?

Well, he wanted to challenge the legality of the appointment of the President of Harvard by the university’s governing board.

Huh?

Spock: Perfectly logical.

Does he still think Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1961? He hasn’t gotten back on that one.

Does he still think the COLB is a forgery, even though World Nut Daily refuted this position late last year? Does he credit “Polarik-XXXXXXXXXXXX” and “Truthdude,” who arae both anonymous and have both been discredited.

Since he voted for McCain (who was, in fact born outside the 48 United States), did he ever see McCain’ birth certificate? Note that the birth certificate posted on the web showing him born in Colon City IS a forgery. Note also that I have maintained on this site that McCain was a natural born citizen.

What is the relevance of his meeting his wife to his natural born citizen status? If he did mispeak, or if the speechwrited mispoke, or he fibbed or lied, then it is certainly a fact to consider if he runs for reelection. But how does it affect his birth 20 odd years earlier?

How does he know about that microfiche? Does he think it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii, yes or no?

I might also add, and this is solely my opinion, that if Ms. Taitz actually viewed the original, she would nevertheless claim that it was a forgery and that Honolulu newspaper archives for 1961 were altered by the addition of the birth announcement. When we talk about “evidence,” we are not talking about satisfying or “convincing” those who cannot be satisfied or convinced. Our entire legal system revolves around the concept of the “reasonable man.” This is a notion which is either unfamiliar to Ms. Taitz or which she is unwilling to accept. My gut instinct, however, supported somewhat by the nature of the groups backing her efforts, is that the challenges are primarily race based.

To the best of my knowlwdge (I may be wrong), the only place President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth has been filed is with a few media outlets. -Am I correct?

Has it ever been filed with the U.S. House of Representatives, or with a U.S. Court of Law?

I’ll stop there so that we can stay on the same page.

I asked a simple question, and expected a simple answer. I did not ask for an excuse. (Making excuses for someone else is the job of a protector, not an unbiased observer.)

I’m not trying to insult you or your intelligence. I just wanted you to recognize and acknowledge a truth from a falsehood. I’m not ready to impeach anybody, so don’t jump off the deep end.

“The Major has admitted that he requested an Afghanistan post, just so he would gain what in his mind was standing to sue.”

I’m not aware of Major Cook making that statement, but let’s say he did. As I have pointed out in a previuous post, undercover officers regularly by drugs in order to make an arrest, and prosecute the drug dealer. -It’s called “making a case”.

“Vince Treacy has been providing copious evidence of the fact that this “challenge” is spurious, yet you and the other birther proponents on this thread have continually ignored it.”

You have chosen to accept the information presented by Vince. I have not. I don’t find it to be conclusive. I am just another member of the jury.

“You are unhappy about the outcome of the election and your unhappiness overcomes any sense of loyalty to the American Electoral System.”

I’m not unhappy with the results of the election, and I can surely find more evidence of your complaints against our electoral system than any that I have posted. -Especially when I have never posted a complaint about our electoral system.

I didn’t vote for John McCain. As such, do you really think I have grounds to complain about Barack Obama winning the election?
Your accusations are unfounded.

–I treat you with respect. I expect the same in return.

Have you seen the microfiche containing Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth? -I haven’t either. -Instead of attacking me, or Major Cook, or Dr. Taitz; why don’t you try addressing the merits of the claim? That’s what court filings are all about.

Now let’s consider some fundamental evidence law. Among the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule is the provision that makes admissible certain types of public records, including records of vital statistics, and even church records relating to births, deaths, marriages, etc. A copy of a birth certificate, properly certified by the custodial agency, is prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. Accordingly, once a certified copy has been produced, as it was in the case of Pres. Obama, the burden of disproving the truth of that record shifts to the opposing party. I have yet to see a single instance in which a birther has produced an authenticated document or other credible evidence even suggesting that the president’s birth certificate is invalid, or a forgery. A mere assertion that the president’s background includes the use of “39 different social security numbers,” without more, does not even merit a response, let alone contrary proof.

Finally, let me address your comment regarding standing. You and others have repeatedly suggested that there is something vaguely conspiratorial about efforts to challenge a person’s standing to sue. Indeed, the insinuation is that the government withdrew Maj. Cook’s orders solely to eliminate standing and moot the case, thereby precluding the possibility of a determination on the merits. That in fact is what Ms. Taitz is claiming at present, that somehow this is a “victory” for her position. (Forget the fact that this guy just lost his employment and his career for the benefit of Taitz’ self-promotion.) The response to this is obvious to anyone who has a litigation practice. A lawyer’s duty in defending a claim is to seek its dismissal if there are legitimate grounds to do so. That’s all. There’s nothing more to it than that.

“1. Every effort is being made to remove the plaintiff from having “standing”. Why?”

The Major has admitted that he requested an Afghanistan post, just so he would gain what in his mind was standing to sue.
He was playing games with the military and never sincere in his original request. You, more than most, should know that you don’t try to manipulate the military without reaping the consequences. Why is the fact that he falsely volunteered so hard for you to grasp, unless it fits in with your pre-conceived notions and anger at who clearly won the Presidency.

“2. The authenticity of President Obama’s reported “Certification of Live Birth” has been challenged.”

Vince Treacy has been providing copious evidence of the fact that this “challenge” is spurious, yet you and the other birther proponents on this thread have continually ignored it.
This isn’t debate Jim, it is the childishness of ten year old’s going Nyanh! Nyanh! Nyanh! on the schoolyard. You are unhappy about the outcome of the election and your unhappiness overcomes any sense of loyalty to the American Electoral System. It’s not a football game Jim, it’s our country and you and the other birthers don’t care because you’re angry your side lost. That is sad for the state that political discourse has fallen to and said because of an inability to understand that the people have spoken, no matter how much you don’t like their opinions.

You are as vulnerable to “cached thought” as the next person. Instead of making excuses, why not address the merits of the claim?

President Obama did not state that he met his wife while he was still in school, or while interning. He stated that he met her “in class”. -That is not the truth. Is it?

This is a yes or no question. Please answer the question.

I’m sorry to say this Jim, but using these kind of tactics, especially when you are in ignorance of the situation, are really quite tacky. You have tried to maintain an air of being merely an interested citizen above the fray in this and looking for truth and it seems you are having a hard time maintaining that pose.

It seems to me that when Democrats, liberals, or centrists win office, there is always a concerted effort to de-legitimize them. In the case of Bill Clinton for instance, Richard Mellon Scaife gave tens of million$ to support these efforts and make spurious claims, none of which materialized. Al Franken, who clearly won a close race was prevented from taking his seat for months. Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign for using call girls, while David Vitter who dressed in diapers for his prostitutes stays on as Senator, not to mention John Ensign and Mark Sanford.

Then we have John Kerry, a legitimate war hero, disparaged by a well financed “truth” squad and Republican who mostly never served wearing purple band aids on the fingers to mock his purple heart at their convention. The fact that he was running against two men who had dodged the draft in Viet Nam, while supporting the war, was little mentioned.

Now we have a new President, elected overwhelmingly and out of the woodwork comes the same well financed efforts at under
mining him with totally spurious charges. There simply is no there, there, no matter how many words are parsed. The election is over and your side lost fair and square. If you
birther types really are the patriots you profess to be, then you will put this nonsense aside. If you don’t then despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not patriots who support the American system, but akin to a bunch of disgruntled football fans, view every call against their team a bad one and glory when the referees call it wrongly for your team. That’s not patriotism.

Please don’t come back with the specious argument that Democrats did it in 2,000 with GW Bush, because the effort put in is nothing compared to the underground million$ being
used to finance the de-legitimization of our President.

While I do agree that some of the language contained in the petition is not in the style of which we have become accustomed, we must remember that English is not the first language of Dr. Taitz. The meat of the petition is sufficient to permit the court to comprehend the claim.

For those that would like to read the petition; HERE IS A LINK.

Dr. Taitz has filed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice. A California complaint is inflammatory and irrelevant. -Instead of attacking the attorney and her client(s), I would suggest attacking the merits of the claim.

You stated “She has publicly asserted that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of one’s parents be citizens, a blatant falsehood.”

To the best of my knowledge, determination of natural-born status has never been determined in a U.S. Court. As such, her claim may have as much merit as the next.

Two things bother me:
1. Every effort is being made to remove the plaintiff from having “standing”. Why? Who would have standing to challenge the constitutionally mandated qualifications of President Obama?
2. The authenticity of President Obama’s reported “Certification of Live Birth” has been challenged. The remedy to such challenge is easily obtainable. The “Certificate of Live Birth” is reportedly on file with the Hawaii Department of Health. It is reported to be on microfiche. -If validated, the questions become moot…now, and forever.

The questions regarding the background of President Obama are not unfounded. We know the person reported to be his father was not a U.S. Citizen. We know that he lived in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro. We have not seen his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his Illinois State Bar Association records, or his adoption records (living as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia).

In addition, President Obama has stated that he met his wife in school. -Only problem is…they never attended school together.

“I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.

But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989. Obama was a summer associate (essentially a legal intern) there and Robinson was an attorney completing her first year at the firm. Both attended Harvard Law School, but Michelle graduated in the spring of 1988, while Barack Obama did not arrive at the Cambridge, Mass., campus until that fall.

—I’m not a religious man. I don’t believe anything based solely on faith. To me, enough darkness, and enough inconsistencies exist to make me question the honesty of the man. I know some may not like that, but I would be dishonest if I didn’t admit such.

Also, the citizen grand jury petitions were kicked out of court summarily by the high respected Chief Judge Royce Lambert of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

http://www.thedailytube.com/video/18379/president-obama-calls-on-the-military-to-shave-colberts-head

Seen Colbert’s haircut lately?

I could go on, but if you read it, you will see for yourself that the petition is not something a competent lawyer would put his or her signature on. Vince Treacy has also pointed out some glaring problems with the pleading. A complaint was recently filed against Taitz with the State Bar of California. I will be surprised if this lady is not ultimately disbarred.

With respect to Major Cook, I believe that he is a dupe. Taitz has been actively soliciting members of the military from all over the country to become parties to her suits. She has publicly asserted that to be a natural born citizen requires that both of one’s parents be citizens, a blatant falsehood. She has publicly called for armed insurrection if her demands are not met. She has convened a wholly illegal “citizen’s grand jury” to indict the president and others. She has been practicing law in states in which she is not admitted to practice. She has demanded the resignation of authorities, including judges, who disagree with her views. How does this affect Cook? First, he has an obligation to proceed in good faith, particularly if he is challenging a facially lawful command. Good faith means more than simply relying on what some crackpot lawyer feeds him. Second, he signed the petition under oath, affirmatively stating that he had investigated all of the allegations and that they were all true. I’m confident that he hasn’t investigated anything.