Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Courts, Military, Politics

Retired Major General Supports Litigation Over Obama’s Birth Status

225px-official_portrait_of_barack_obama53px-US_Army_O8_shoulderboard.svgThe controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.

The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.

For the full story, click here.

1,202 thoughts on “Retired Major General Supports Litigation Over Obama’s Birth Status”

  1. Mike Appleton,

    I will address your two latests comments one at a time.

    First you determined that; “I have seen nothing but forgeries proffered to prove your case”. When I asked what evidence you have to support a claim that the Kenyan BC in the possession of Lucas Smith is a forgery, you provide no supporting evidence and change your position to that of claiming that the Kenyan BC will not comply with the rules of evidence. -There’s a big difference between calling something a forgery and claiming that it will not comply with the federal rules of evidence.

    Are you withdrawing your claim that it is a forgery? If not, please support your claim.

    You go on to say; “It is not authenticated by the legal custodian of the birth records”.

    The legal custodian for that record is the Chief Administrator for the hospital from which it originated. If the stamp and seal is the customary certification, accepted in the courts of Kenya, it will likely prove to be sufficient here. (no matter how much we want to, we don’t get to make them change their ways)

    You continue with; “[It] is not accompanied by consular certification of the official position and authority of the legal custodian”.

    Federal Rule 902.3 provides an exception. “If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.”

    Given the ease with which this document could be challenged, and the hardship endured in attaining it, the court will likely order it to be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification. -The court will consider; Whose privacy would be invaded by Obama being required to produce his vault BC to challenge the Kenyan BC? The OB that delivered him? Supposedly, Obama’s Hawaiian BC contains the same information.

    I appreciate your suggestions for how to proceed. Many of them have already been accomplished.

    You said; “I would utilize procedures available under Kenyan law (including associating Kenyan counsel) to depose the custodian of records and every person whose name appears on the certificate, if those persons are still alive.”

    The attending physician is dead, but his daughter is a judge on the Kenyan High Court. I’m sure that she can provide documents for signature comparison.

    The Motion for Rogatory was filed for the purpose of asking for assistance from a foreign jurisidiction.

    I’m as interested in making sure this document is authentic as you are. I know you might not think that, and I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I am.

    I will be happy to address specific claims of forgery, but I’m not going to lay all my cards on the table. My investigation leads me to believe the document to be authentic.

  2. BIRTHER, let me add something else. If I were counsel for the plaintiffs in this action, I would take a totally different approach. First, I would make certain that I could satisfy the issue of standing. Second, I would utilize procedures available under Kenyan law (including associating Kenyan counsel) to depose the custodian of records and every person whose name appears on the certificate, if those persons are still alive. I would also make inquiries of hospital employees and would compare the birth certificate furnished by Mr. Smith with a number of examples of contemporaneous certificates known to be valid for variations in form, content and signatures. When the issue is one of this importance, there is no such thing as too much preparation. Ms. Taitz has a tendency to be unprepared and very lax about procedural and substantive details. Those are very bad traits for a lawyer because of the impact on one’s credibility with a court. Even when a lawyer’s misstatement or misrepresentation is innocent, it has a tendency to make a judge skeptical about anything else the lawyer has to say. So the first rule of effective advocacy is to never present something as factual to a judge unless one is absolutely certain and has the evidence to support it.

  3. BIRTHER, my position has to do with the rules of evidence. As I previously noted, the document submitted by Mr. Smith is inadmissible as proof of the truth of its contents because it does not satisfy the foreign public records (or even the domestic public records) exception to the hearsay rule. It is not authenticated by the legal custodian of the birth records and is not accompanied by consular certification of the official position and authority of the legal custodian. Those are minimum requirements for admissibility. Until that happens, there is no evidence to rebut. In other words, the burden of proof remains with the proponents of the document at this point. That is not unique to this case; those rules are applicable to any evidentiary legal proceedings in U.S. courts.

    With regard to historical evidence, I would love to see what you or anyone else has to offer.

  4. Mike Appleton,

    I agree. I don’t think it would void the election. However, I have not looked into the state laws that may have been violated. The fact that one copy does include the statement, and the other copy does not, does not bode well for the DNC.

    As to my stated classes:

    You stated; “I understand evidence, but to date I have seen nothing but forgeries proffered to prove your case.”

    Tell me; what supporting evidence do you have that the Kenyan BC in the possession of Lucas Smith is a forgery?

    Will you still consider it to be a forgery if I debunk your supporting evidence with historical records?

  5. bdaman, I read the canadafreepress piece. It doesn’t really mean anything from a legal standpoint. That is, even if what he says is true, it would not void the election. At most it would require a correction to the paperwork. The writer also leaps to an erroneous conclusion regarding the meaning of the alleged error by asserting that it means that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements. Instead, the only conclusion to be reached if he is correct is that the papers required to confirm Obama’s eligibility have not been properly filed.

    BIRTHER, your three classifications for those who disagree with your position don’t make sense. I understand evidence, but to date I have seen nothing but forgeries proffered to prove your case. If evidence should ever be presented to establish that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for the presidency, I will accept it as I do other court rulings. That will not make me a traitor. It will simply mean that I was misled. Finally, I note that I have made MANY mistakes in my life, for which I have always accepted responsibility (although sometimes only grudgingly). That is why I use my real name in my posts. I am not ashamed of my opinions or of my positions on the various issues that are discussed on this site.

  9. Oops.

    Should be; If the latter were to occur the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would be controlling.

  10. bdaman,

    “Biden would only act as the president until a new one could be appointed.”

    I don’t think so. I think Biden would act as President until a new one was elected.

    From the Twentieth Amendment:

    “[I]f the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”.

    It is my understanding that Biden would remain acting-President until the next election is held, and the qualified winner becomes President, or until Biden resigns, or dies. If the latter were to occur the Twentieth Amendment would be controlling.

    Biden could select Hillary to be VP, then he could resign and Hillary would become POTUS.

  11. Neither do I, but Biden would only act as the president until a new one could be appointed.

  16. When this is all said and done, we will have three classes of people in the U.S.

    1. Birthers.
    2. Those that were unaware.
    3. Those that actively attacked and mocked the birthers.

    If the birthers are wrong, they will continue to be mocked. They will hide their heads in shame.

    Those that were unaware, will likely continue to be unaware, no matter the outcome.

    However, if it turns out that the birthers were correct, those that were presented with the information, and continued to mock the birthers, will be known as traitors to the United States of America.

  17. just because you have unlimited hours for this does not mean others do.
    and finally? no one here answers to you. certainly not Vince.

    thanks for the comment

  18. bdaman writes: Where’s Vince? I know you want to comment, come on Vince. I thought soon as who ever you guys call Jimmy Boyle Birther started Vince would come out of hiding. Come out come out where ever you are.

    oh grow the F up already.
    sometimes people take vacations. sometimes real life events take precedence over blogging.
    just because you have unlimited hours for this does not mean others do.
    and finally? no one here answers to you. certainly not Vince.

  19. Where’s Vince? I know you want to comment, come on Vince. I thought soon as who ever you guys call Jimmy Boyle Birther started Vince would come out of hiding. Come out come out where ever you are.

  20. During this morning’s proceedings, Carter said he had not yet read the motion to dismiss the case. But he said such motions, when based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b), rarely succeed. That is the rule cited by West in his motion.

Comments are closed.