The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
I just don’t think the law works the way the birthers want and hope it to work. Are they saying that a State official can reject a valid birth certificate issued by a sister State, and tell the citizen to go back and get all the underlying private records, without any showing of evidence to question the validity of the certificate? I just don’t think so.
I reviewed file of a senior individual who obtained his birth certificate twice, at a 40-year interval. Both certificates were like the COLB, in that they showed a certification by the official that the birth records were in that official’s custody, and showed the relevant birth information. These certificates did list a hospital, but there was no information on delivering physicians or nurses, and no identification of witnesses or any other officials. The certificates therefore did not constitute actual copies of the original birth records, but were certifications by the custodial officials of the content of those records. They were valid birth certificates.
At one point, the individual received a Top Secret Clearance and later obtained the records of the investigation by means of the Privacy Act. The Agent’s report of the investigation listed the exact same information contained on the birth certificates, no more, no less. The individual was issued a United States Passport on the basis of the certificate.
Going back to my posts above, I happen to think that Indiana, New Hampshire and South Carolina are bound to accept Obama’s record of birth in the United States and his status as a natural born citizen, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary. Although the question has not yet been resolved, I think that the courts would mandate the acceptance of a valid Hawaiian COLB by a State that tried to reject it. I think my analysis of Section 7211 and full faith and credit is correct.
The birthers would like to get their hands on the records and grope through them, applying their forgery theories and conspiracy scenarios, but I don’t think the law will allow it in the absence of any evidence that would provide grounds to doubt the official certification.
The birthers in general do not concede that the release of the records of Obama’s birth in Hawaii would make him a natural born citizen. Many birthers would never concede the accuracy of the records and would charge forgery. The after-birthers would still deny him natural born status (a) because his father was Kenyan, making Obama a Kenyan citizen at birth, or (b) because he did not have two US citizen parents as defined by Vattel, or both.
I have examined these theories and found them lacking. There are hundreds of postings on this point here under Leo Donofrio and Retired General threads and over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site.
Release absolutely would not stop any of the pending lawsuits by Kreep in CA, by Taitz in CA and DC, by Berg in DC or by Apuzzo in NJ.
So, no, I don’t think the release would change more than a tiny sliver of birther minds.
Vince Treacy,
Don’t you consider Barack Obama to have a tangible interest in his own vital records?
If Obama can view and obtain a certified copies of his vital records, and those vital records will show that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, why not have them released and end that part of the controversy? He sure could use the vindication right now.
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
http://www:capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06/Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS 0338-0018.htm
http://storyballoon.org/have-you-seen-the-new-obama-quarters/
So you can still copy the links and post them now. Professor Turley rarely if ever post a comment in moderation.
Only post two links at a time and it won’t go into moderation
This is from the State’s site:
QUOTE
In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.
Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.
1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth
State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
UNQUOTE
[The three links are awaiting moderation. They are at the site]
This is from the State’s site
QUOTE
In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.
Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The
Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.
1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth
State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06/Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS 0338-0018.htm
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
http://www:capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
UNQUOTE
Mike, Vince is a real lawyer. He did not get his degree from an online course. He received instruction in the classroom. As a lawyer I’m sure he is aware of what you posted. On the other hand I am not a lawyer but it would seem to me that conclusive evidence
would be an ORIGINAL certificate would be conclusive.
Vince thank you for
Vassilios LIACAKOS, a/k/a William G. Lias, Plaintiff,
v.
Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 5249-55.
United States District Court District of Columbia. June 29, 1961.
A case where some one despite being a two time convicted felon can state over and over where he was born and the court can and did deem him a natural born citizen of the U.S. all based on his consistent statements that he was born in Wheeling, West Virginia.
I feel much better about the current situation.
I do not see any discussion of section 7211 or of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
“The birth certificate is a public record.” “TRUE.”
If the birth certificate is a public record, then it is entitled to full faith and credit.
I said “The State of Hawaii is not allowed by its laws to release the underlying records.” I based it on this: “State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).”
Source: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
That is what I was referring to. That is their law. I would refer all to the State’s discussion of “responses to frequently asked questions related to all records and documents maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II” at that site.
Back to the beginning. Obama’s birth was challenged, placing the burden on him. He met the burden by producing a valid birth certificate that meets all the requirements of US law and the Constitution. The COLB is the only certificate that Hawaii issues today. It no longer issues the old “Certificate” of Live Birth. It is what is now issued to by everyone who was born in Hawaii.
Other countries may have other requirements, but it is my opinion that the States and the US Government are bound by Article IV. There is no credible evidence that the COLB is not valid. As prima facie evidence, it is conclusive until rebutted.
The burden is on the birthers to rebut that evidence. There have been some forged Kenyan certificates. There has been some dubious forensic analysis by the fictitious Ron Polarik. In the meantime, exhaustive review by Politifact.com of the St Petersburg Times and Factcheck.org have verified it. The birthers reject their findings furiously, but I will rely on them until there is a rebuttal.
So where is the evidence to the contrary? All we have seen is speculation, rumor and innuendo.
“The birth certificate is a public record.” TRUE
“The State of Hawaii is not allowed by its laws to release the underlying records.” FALSE (HRS 338-18)
“The Certification of Live Birth that it issued is a public record entitled to full faith and credit.” It is only entitled to full faith and credit as being prima facie evidence. Who declared the certification to be prima facie and not conclusive? The State of Hawaii. That’s who.
[HRS 338-18] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
Obama can inspect and obtain a certified copy his vital records.
People leave the United States all the time. Other countries are not required to give full faith and credit. Those countries can and do require certified copies of the original. The Hawaii Department of Health Website states that
“Apostilles and the authentication of certified copies of vital records for international legalization can be provided.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
Hawaii says that they can provide “certified copies of vital records”, but Vince Treacy says they cannot. I think we must side with Hawaii on their own law.
“…Article IV poWers…”
Thanks, Union Jack.
Here is a link to the full text of that case:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/vassilios-v-kennedy-95-f-supp-630-1961/
Note: A man born in the US to Greek Parents, considered to be a Greek citizen under Greece’s Jus Sanguini rules and a US citizen under the 14th Amendment was found to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Both the fact that he was born to two aliens and the fact that he possessed a dual allegiance formed no objection to the ruling that he was a natural born citizen
195 F.Supp. 630
Vassilios LIACAKOS, a/k/a William G. Lias, Plaintiff,
v.
Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 5249-55.
United States District Court District of Columbia. June 29, 1961.
Jack Wasserman and David Carliner, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., E. Riley Casey, Gil Zimmerman and William A. Matthews, Sp. Assts. to U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
This is the trial of an action brought by the plaintiff, William Lias, to set aside an order directing his deportation as an alien illegally in the United States. The plaintiff, in addition to questioning the validity of the deportation proceeding itself and the final order therein, also challenges the ruling of the Immigration authorities that he is an alien. The plaintiff claims to be a natural born citizen of the United States and seeks a declaration of his nationality. In effect, this proceeding combines two distinct causes of action: a cause of action for a declaratory judgment establishing citizenship of the United States; and a cause of action to review and set aside the deportation order made in the administrative proceeding.
It is well established that an action for a declaratory judgment lies to secure an adjudication that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320; Tom Mung Ngow v. Dulles, D.C., 122 F.Supp. 709. The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has further held that an action for a declaratory judgment to establish citizenship may be combined with an action to review the validity of the administrative proceeding. Frank v. Rogers, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 253 F.2d 889.
An action for declaratory judgment differs in important respects from an action to review the validity of the administrative proceeding. The latter is limited to a consideration of the administrative record, and the only questions open are whether there is any error of law in the proceeding and whether there is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of fact. An action for a declaratory judgment, however, involves a trial de novo. A ruling of an administrative official denying citizenship has no prima facie effect or any other effect except to serve as a basis for establishing a justiciable controversy. What is being tried now is the cause of action for a declaratory judgment to establish citizenship. In such an action the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This burden of proof, however, need not be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely by a fair preponderance of the evidence, for naturally, the proceeding is of a civil nature.
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural- born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece, where his father later died. He further claims that in 1909 his widowed mother came back to the United States with the plaintiff’s two older sisters and himself. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been living in Wheeling, West Virginia, continuously since 1909. The Government contends, however, that he was born in Cythion, Greece, and that he was brought here by his mother in 1909, instead of having been previously born here, taken back to Greece and returned here in 1909.
The case is not free from doubt. There are many discrepancies in the testimony. In weighing evidence, it is well to bear in mind the well-known statement of Lord Mansfield in Blatch v. Archer, 1 Cowper 63, 66, 98 English Reports 969, 970, to the effect that:
“It is certainly a maxim that all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted.”
This maxim has been often quoted. It was referred to favorably by the Supreme Court in Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 13, 51, 48 S.Ct. 1, 72 L.Ed. 137, and by Judge Parker in the opinion of the Fourth Circuit in Henderson v. Richardson Co., 25 F.2d 225, 228.
We start with the important fact that there is no contemporaneous record of the plaintiff’s birth, either in Wheeling, West Virginia, or in Cythion, Greece. Necessarily, a record of birth contemporaneously made by governmental authority in official records would be almost conclusive evidence of birth. There is no such record in Wheeling, West Virginia. The Government, through its counsel, conducted an exhaustive and very able investigation in Greece, that resulted in uncovering many very old records in which the plaintiff’s forebears are named, but again there is no record of the plaintiff’s birth. Neither side, in other words, has been able to produce anything like a contemporaneous birth certificate.
It is a matter of common knowledge that in the United States, at least, until recent years there were many localities that did not maintain comprehensive and complete vital statistics or birth records, and that even in those metropolitan centers in which such records were maintained some have been lost or destroyed accidentally, from time to time, either by fire or flood or other casualties. Consequently, too much significance cannot be attached to the absence of a birth certificate, although this circumstance creates additional problems both for counsel and for the Court. While there was no burden on the Government to show that the records of Wheeling, West Virginia, listing births that occurred in that city in the year 1900 are extant and complete, nevertheless, it is a fair inference, in view of the very thorough investigation that was made by the Government, that if this were the fact the Government would have ascertained it to be so. Consequently, we have to decide the case on other evidence, no one item being conclusive, weighing it in the light of Lord Mansfield’s famous maxim, to which reference has been made.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the evidence it should be observed that the ground on which deportation is sought is a highly technical one. The Government does not seek to deport the plaintiff as an alien because of any crimes that he may have committed or because he is a subversive individual or for any reason going to his merits or demerits. The ground of deportation is that on one occasion he crossed to Canada, from Detroit to Windsor, for a social visit, remained there about a day and returned without presenting, as the regulations required in respect to an alien, either a reentry permit or a border-crossing pass. If he was a citizen, of course, such a document was not required. If he was an alien, such a document was needed and his entry without it was technically illegal. If his entry was illegal, in the eyes of the law he is deportable, and it is on this rather tenuous ground that deportation is sought.
It may be read between the lines that this incident is used as a reed on which to lean the deportation proceeding, because the plaintiff, according to the evidence, has been engaged over the years in a series of criminal and unsavory activities. He was convicted at least three times for violations of the national prohibition laws, which involved two sentences to Atlanta penitentiary. He was convicted of a misdemeanor in connection with the operation of a policy lottery. Further, apparently, in addition to operating a race track, which in and of itself is a legitimate occupation, he has been engaged in certain activities that were on the fringe of morality. But the duty of the Court is to decide the question of law and fact, and nothing else, that is presented in this proceeding, and not to pass judgment upon the morality of his life.
We start the consideration of the evidence with what is sometimes known as a delayed birth certificate issued by the proper authorities of the State of West Virginia. One was issued on October 28, 1946 by the Clerk of the County Court of the County of Ohio, State of West Virginia, in which the City of Wheeling is located, and the other was issued on November 1, 1946 by the Director of Health of the State of West Virginia and State Registrar of Vital Statistics. Each of these certificates attests to the fact that the plaintiff was born on July 14, 1900 in Wheeling, West Virginia.
Naturally, the same weight is not attached to a birth certificate of a delayed nature, such as these, as would be accorded to a contemporaneous birth record. Nevertheless, it is sufficient, without anything else, to establish a prima facie case. Delayed birth certificates are issued pursuant to State statutes. Such State statutes were enacted because of the difficulties that many Americans born in this country have in obtaining birth certificates due to the circumstances to which the Court has already adverted. In fact, very frequently it is much harder for a natural-born citizen of the United States to obtain proof of his
citizenship than it is for a naturalized citizen, because the naturalized citizen always has a naturalization certificate. The Passport Bureau of the State Department recognizes this by its willingness to accept affidavits in lieu of birth certificates.
We now turn to some of the records unearthed in Greece. What is called an extract of a penal record of the plaintiff of the Office of The Ministry of Justice refers to the fact that he was born in the United States in 1899 and that his penal status is nil. There is a certificate from the Mayor of Cythion to the effect that plaintiff’s name is carried in the Males Register of the Municipality as having been born in America of Greek citizen parents and as having come to Greece with his parents. There are other documents showing that he, together with other members of his family, has been carried on the Males Register of this Greek Municipality.
The evidence tends to show that citizenship in Greece is based on jus sanguinis rather than on jus soli and that, consequently, a person born abroad of Greek parents is regarded by Greece as a subject of Greece,—this, of course, is true of many Continental countries— and that his name is carried on what is known as the Males Register, which is used as a basis for listing persons who are subject to military duty. There appears to be no Greek record specifically attesting to the fact that the plaintiff was born in that country.
In 1926 the plaintiff was married, and the marriage license issued by the County of Brooke in West Virginia recites that the place of the husband’s birth was Wheeling, West Virginia. When he arrived at the Atlanta penitentiary as a prisoner on June 24, 1926, he was required to sign a statement containing answers to certain questions and gave West Virginia as an answer to the inquiry as to his place of nativity. He had a son born on January 2, 1936, and the father’s birthplace in the son’s birth certificate is recorded as Wheeling, West Virginia. A daughter was born on November 3, 1939, and her birth certificate also recites the father’s birthplace as being Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1940 he obtained a number of small insurance policies on the lives of his two children, and in each application signed by him he gives Wheeling, West Virginia, as the place of his birth. On April 18, 1932, he was back in the Atlanta penitentiary and again he gave the place of his nativity as West Virginia. In addition, his application for parole, dated November 15, 1932, states that he was born and raised in Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1940 he was carried on local registration lists as an eligible voter.
The plaintiff supplemented this documentary evidence by testimony to the effect that his mother had told him that he was born in Wheeling, West Virginia. Such evidence is admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule relating to pedigree. While the Court does not attach too much weight to it, nevertheless, it is some corroboration of the documentary evidence, which to the Court appears to be much more weighty.
If this array of documentary evidence stood alone, the Court would have no question about the case whatever. However, as stated by the Court at the opening of its remarks, the case is not free from doubt, because on two important occasions it appears that the plaintiff represented himself as an alien. The first occasion is in connection with his registration for the draft in the First World War. His draft registration card contains the answer “No” to the question whether he is a citizen of the United States. Evidence was introduced by the plaintiff challenging the genuineness of his signature to the draft registration card. The Court is not satisfied with that evidence.
The Court is inclined to draw the inference that, very likely, the plaintiff was desirous of dodging the draft and used this means of avoiding liability to military service. He did not report for military service in Greece and he avoided it in this country. This Court, however, is not trying him on a charge of evading the draft during the First World War.
The other important statement is in connection with the marriage certificate on the occasion of his second marriage, which took place in 1935 in Brooklyn, New York. The affidavit attached to the license to marry purporting to be signed by the plaintiff recites that the country of his birth was Greece. The explanation adduced in his behalf is that actually the groom and his prospective bride went to the marriage license bureau in a festive mood, accompanied by a number of close relatives, and that in fact the information contained in the affidavit was given by one or two of the relatives while the plaintiff and his prospective bride stood aside and, according to the deposition of the plaintiff, somewhat under the influence of alcoholic beverages, as is not unlikely on an occasion such as that. While this explanation is not completely convincing, nevertheless, the fact remains that on every occasion in which the plaintiff was called upon to state the place of his birth, except the two just mentioned, he gave Wheeling, West Virginia, as his birthplace, and that information to that effect appears in the record of the Greek Municipality in which his family had its origin.
It must be borne in mind that citizenship of the United States is a very precious thing; that natural-born citizens very frequently have a great deal of difficulty in proving their status due to uncertainties of birth records and that this circumstance should not lead to a lack of stability of citizenship because, if it did, many a legitimate citizen of the United States would find himself deprived of it.
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
And the COLB has been verified by the free press guaranteed to us by the First Amendment:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
The birth certificate is a public record. The State of Hawaii is not allowed by its laws to release the underlying records. The Certification of Live Birth that it issued is a public record entitled to full faith and credit.
Here are a couple of laws that the lawyers can read: the Constitution and the federal legal definition of birth certificate:
“Article IV
“Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Congress has prescribed the manner in which the public records are to be proved. The definition of birth certificate in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.”
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
This is the federal law on the issue of the validity of birth certificates, issued under Congress’s Article IV posers. In opposition, there is a quotation over 100 years old about statements of federal official, not state public records.
Prima facie evidence becomes conclusive evidence if it is not rebutted. There has been no rebuttal of the COLB. The allegations of forgery, by “Polarik” (a pseudonym) have been discredited.
The idea that a valid birth certificate certified by a State is NOT a public record is novel, to say the least. Go to the Hawaii “Public Records” site and find out how to obtain a birth certificate, which they include as a public record:
http://www.statearchives.us/public/hawaii.htm\
The certified record from Hawaii is prima facie evidence, and is therefore going to be “conclusive” unless it is rebutted by other evidence, such as a REAL foreign birth certificate. Since none exists (other than in the dreams of the conspiracy lovers), it is game, set, match for the COLB. See Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630, 632-633 (D.D.C. 1961).
P.S. – Vince is a “real” lawyer.
“By making the entry of forfeiture upon the official record prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence that all preliminary steps essential to a valid forfeiture were properly taken, and that the forfeiture was duly declared, it but established a rebuttable presumption, which he was at liberty to overcome by other evidence.” -REITLER V. HARRIS, 223 U. S. 437 (1912)
Prima Facie evidence is rebuttable. Conclusive Evidence is not.
Giving full faith and credit to prima facie evidence does not declare it to be beyond rebuttal.
“The force and effect of such testimony has been several times considered by this Court. Thus, in United States v. Eckford’s Executors, 1 How. 250, a statement of account by the officers of the Treasury was held not to be conclusive, but only prima facie, evidence. So in United States v. Hodge, 13 How. 478, a Treasury transcript offered in evidence was held to be competent, but not conclusive. In Watkins v. United States, 9 Wall. 759, nothing more appeared in the shape of evidence than the certified transcript of accounts, and, being held to be prima facie evidence, it warranted judgment for the government for the amount therein shown to be due, in the absence of any testimony explaining or contradicting it. But that case does not hold that certified transcripts of accounts are conclusive upon the officer.” -United States v. Dumas, 149 U.S. 278 (1893)
From somewhere out in left field Vince Treacy asserts that “Public records of Hawaii are conclusive evidence under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.” It’s too bad that “certifications” are based on public record, but are not the public record themselves. Prima facie evidence is not conclusive evidence. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Are there any “real lawyers” here who will join Vince Treacy in his false claim that prima facie evidence is conclusive evidence?
Public records of Hawaii are conclusive evidence under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.