RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

UPDATE 04.22.10:  I have replaced the link to the APFC web site containing the image of the unattributed ‘contemporaneous birth announcement,’ with a screen capture of that ‘now you see it; now you don’t’ facsimile.

(Update 08.11.09:  After you have read this article, make sure to read the readers’ comments, along with my (sometimes lengthy) replies.  “Miri” took the lessons learned from my post one step further, offering up a classic example of the de-construction of BO-speak, in her Comment submitted on 08.11.09 at 1:45 PM.)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE 08.14.09:  UPDATE AT END)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE 01.31.10:  UPDATE AT END)

Last night, I  received this brief comment from jan C.

jbjd: I have been told that the Honolulu Observer states that the birth information published comes from hospitals.  Is that confirmed anywhere?  What is your explanation for the existence of the newspaper birth announcements if he was not born in the hospital?

I conducted some research to prepare my response, and stumbled across  information that blunts another arrow of authenticity in BO’s quiver.

jan C: Welcome.

I generally stay out of discussions as to whether photocopied or scanned documents posted on the web are real.  (Your guess is as good as mine.)  Instead, I try to find out where the image came from.

I remember BO did not post that newspaper birth announcement image on his FTS web site.   (I don’t mean now that the site belongs to the DNC; I mean even before the switch, back when it  was still paid for by Obama for America.)  I always thought this was odd.  He posted the COLB, and the admission that he was a British subject at birth whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  And I can picture the official logo of Annenberg Political FactCheck.org, which linked to APFC’s web site, where more testimonials were printed as to BO’s Constitutional legitimacy.  I recall how incredulous I was at the time, that he would publicly tout Annenberg as an “independent” arbiter of his eligibility to be POTUS, since that was his boss when he was Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.  (Doesn’t everyone know that?)  I did remember seeing that birth announcement posted on APFC’s web site; so that’s where I went first.

The image of that newspaper birth announcement is  still there.

I clicked on the image to trace its origin.  But wherever I clicked, I kept getting back to the blog named td, or texas darlin.  That is, I got to a screen with a td header and message saying ‘what you want is no longer here.’  Well, I post on td’s blog; in fact, she calls me their “resident lawyer.”  (She is on my blog roll.)  So the first time this happened, I figured, too many windows open, too many thumbs.  Then, it happened again. And now  it dawned on me, could it be that td’s site is the source of the picture of the newspaper announcement APFC posts on their site and uses to prove BO is a NBC; and APFC  merely copied it?

Just below the image, I found my answer: The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Say what?   But APFC must have conducted their own investigation, right?  Surely, they contacted the Honolulu Advertiser to check the facts surrounding this birth announcement publication.  Of course they viewed the archives and located that same image from microfiche or other medium.  Reading just a little further, I was bound to find the record of such comprehensive investigation.  But here was APFC’s last word on the subject.

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday.  We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.  The evidence is clear:  Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

In sum, the image of that announcement of BO’s birth in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC came from an anonymous poster on the td blog.  APFC usurped that image, posted this on its site, and with no further evidence of authentication declared, “The evidence is clear:  Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence the image of BO’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC and all over the internet,  is fake; BO tried to fool a federal judge into finding this was real, too.

Hollister v. Soetoro et. al is only one of the many unsuccessful lawsuits filed against BO in a frantic attempt to ascertain whether he is a NBC.  As in every other case, BO submitted a Motion to Dismiss.  (Defendants’ Motion in Hollister argued Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and failed to establish the court had jurisdiction.  This was all procedural; the court had not yet reached the substantive merits of the case.)  I had read Plaintiff’s Complaint when it was first filed; I knew it was infirm, and the reasons why.  So, I would not have read BO’s Motion to Dismiss if someone hadn’t asked my opinion.  And there, in footnote 1 on the front page of the Memorandum in support of his Motion, I found this sneaky little gem of propaganda, arguably placed there to reap maximum attention from the public as much as the court.  Written quite cleverly so as to disguise its real meaning, the footnote is more easily understood with translation.

1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. (BO left out that by “publicly produced” he meant, he posted the image of a COLB on the internet.) ( You already know the difference between a certification and a certificate, at least before October 2008, when HI began using the terms interchangeably.) See, e.g., (this means, to back up the point I just made, I am going to use a reference that is not directly on point and only kind of related.) Factcheck.org, (He leaves out the Annenberg Political…) “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). (Now, this is a double slight of hand.  First, BO says (AP)FC “conclud[ed]” that the BC is real, so as to reaffirm for the court, the statement he made above that he produced a birth certificate must be true.  Notice he fails to draw any nexus between his producing the BC and, APFC “concluding” it is real, only implying such nexus exists.)  (Look at how cleverly he slipped in a reference to the meaningless newspaper announcement of his birth.  He says, APFC “not[ed] a contemporaneous birth announcement.”  But he does not say they only made this note of it:  “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”) (By formatting his cite in this way, he maximizes the likelihood that a quick read would bamboozle a clerk into mistaking this to be a holding of law from a court case instead of merely a reference to the opinion of his former employer expressed in a blog posting.) Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” (He is clearly trying to put one over on the court.  As I explained in detail in a prior post, ” jbjd BIRTHER,” HI officials did not say that the “original birth certificate” “on record”  they are referring to, confirms BO was born in HI; nor did they confirm the COLB he posted saying he was born in HI, is authentic; or that the information contained in that on-line COLB matches the information in their files.) See (This means, the next reference is not directly on point but is kind of related.) “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. (Whoever wrote this is playing fast and loose with the canons of ethics.  Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial notice means, the court accepts as true that fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known as true, or it is capable of accurate and ready determination.  The process of judicial notice is the easiest way for the parties to get evidence into the record.  TECHNICALLY, everything BO alleges here is easily verified as true.  Of course, nothing he says here can be understood to mean what he intends the Court to hear.  But if the Court took judicial notice of the fact, APFC said, he’s for real, he would spin this into the narrative, the federal court has ruled he is a NBC, much in the same way APFC insists, an image of a newspaper birth announcement stolen from a blogger is “clear” “evidence”  BO is a NBC.) See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). (Presumably, these are cites to cases that contain some vague indication that judicial notice could possibly be taken under the set of facts alleged here; and in light of the fact, the case hasn’t even progressed past the Motion to Dismiss stage.)

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/9-1.pdf

Thankfully, the only thing the court granted BO in Hollister was a Dismissal.

Hollister was filed in January 2009.  But beginning back in July 2008, I surmised, the strongest piece of evidence BO could produce to verify his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, is that COLB he posted on FTS, which means nothing.  By placing that footnote in his Motion to Dismiss in Hollister, he validated my suspicions.  If he had ‘evidence’ of eligibility with more gravitas than a photocopied COLB; or a phantom image of a newspaper birth announcement, he would have asked the federal judge to take judicial notice of that.  And surely, if that announcement of birth in the Honolulu Advertiser meant anything, he would have posted this on FTS.  (So, on what basis did NP and the DNC Certify BO is a NBC?)

In sum, the newspaper announcement of BO’s birth is a sham, making the rest of your questions moot.

UPDATE 08.14.09: Based on his submission of this footnote to the federal court in January, I am surmising that the strongest evidence BO could have provided to NP to verify his Constitutional status before she Certified his eligibility for POTUS on August 27; was this same APFC characterization of authenticity.  BUT THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE HE HAD TO PROVE TO THE COURT HE WAS A NBC; WAS THAT CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION NP SIGNED AND FORWARDED TO STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SO THAT HIS NAME COULD BE PRINTED ON THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS!  This begs the question:  why did lawyers from PERKINS COIE ask the court to take judicial notice their client was for real by referencing a web site run by the organization APFC, given that they could have cited his authentication as a natural born citizen in any one of the 50 Official DNC Certifications of Nomination sworn to by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?

UPDATE 01.31.10: For more de-construction of Bob Bauer’s infamous footnote in Hollister, see http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-federal-court-f-you/; and http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/(Also see any of the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.)

©2009

About these ads

41 Responses to RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

  1. Earlier today the fates saw fit to condemn jbjd’s post to the Purgatory of the internet (wherever that is)…after much hair pulling and gnashing of teeth, he found it and restored it to the this world of the living…praise be. After a few desperate emails here is my reply to his very good fortune:

    Brother, if losing my comment was the worst of it, you’re doing alright. I am relieved to see you got your outstanding post back. Great analysis, superior coherence, and rational to a fault (as always).

    Cheers and obviously you haven’t chapped the Lord’s (*) to any significant degree lately as evidenced by your retrieval. Ha!

    Pieter E. Nosworthy
    1SG, USA

    Noz: Thank you (and thanks for re-sending your comment). I put so much work into my postings, it is nice to be appreciated. Spread the word. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, Great post! Another piece of the fraud, exposed. I am curious to see how deep this fraud goes. Forging documents, and usurping the Presidency of the United States of America, calls for some harsh justice.
    I believe, what we have is, GE Corporation, in collusion, with “Obama”, to usurp, the Presidency.

    NBC,and MSNBC have gone beyond reporting, on the Natural born citizen issue, to the point of defending, and covering up, the fraud. This is some very serious crime!

    What is it going to take before people realize the depth, and magnitude, of this fraud? All Obama gave us, to prove, where he was born, is a forged COLB, and a photoshopped image, of a supposed, newspaper article, along with, NBC, and MSNBC’s,(GE’s), complicity,and we have,fraud, in the first degree.

    I hope, someday, all of your hard work, will be rewarded, when justice is done.

    bob strauss: Thank you very much for appreciating the hard work that goes into this endeavor. I began offering ‘advice’ on other people’s blogs because some of the posters had no idea how the ‘system’ worked. I, too, was pretty ignorant (read, complacent) before this past election cycle. (Even if I had been more involved in the political system, this would not have helped me to anticipate the problems that confronted us, because many of these presented issues of first impression.) I figured, if it took me this long to figure things out then, others must be in the dark, too. So, I began posting comments on the blogs. But I had to keep repeating the same answers, over and over again. That’s why I set up this blog. It is rather rudimentary by blog standards but, if you scroll through, you can really learn a lot. And I worked really hard to learn the things I post here, so that I can write about them!

    As to your statement that you hope my hard work will be rewarded, well, the fact that my efforts attract people like you, who learn, question, and comment is quite rewarding.
    ADMINISTRATOR

  3. d2i says:

    You know jbjd, I remember that post and thought immediately to myself, “how friggin convenient”, and had hoped someone over at TD was looking into its authentication. I was new to blogging at that time and did not trust my skills nor myself enough to do any exploring on my own.

    This is extremely important, however, is there anyway possible for TD to do any tracing on that poster? Is there anything TD could add to this critical conversation about that poster? Could that poster have been assigned to track TDs site by the 0 team? If so, could the 0 team have been cyberstaking out TD’s website due to Judah’s provocative posts on Constitutional/Article II law AND 0’s Kenyan and Indonesian background? It would make perfect sense that they’d use her site to plant that announcement.

    Oh my, jbjd, oh my.

    d2i: I was thinking the same thing! I posted a comment on td yesterday, before I finished writing this article, asking td whether she could get me to the original poster; but the comment remained in moderation until today. I just checked back; td posted the comment but did not answer that question. Pursuing this investigation is outside of the scope of my focus. I assume people on both sides of the eligibility question are up to no good. But obviously, I have established beyond any reasonable doubt, contrary to the name of their group, APFC does not check facts. But, if you look at the list of U.S. Congresspeople, Representatives and Senators, R and D, who rejected constituent concerns as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility by telling them, ‘But FactCheck said he’s for real – the list is included in the Facts section of the military Complaint I posted previously – you have to wonder… What would they say now, with the truth about APFC revealed? Now, why do they assume BO is a NBC? AND ON WHAT BASIS DID NP AND THE DNC CERTIFY HE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB! ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Miri says:

    jbjd: That was a most crucial insight: That FactCheck DOESN’T check facts. That all they do is take things from Internet blogs and put it out there as TRUTH.

    For all I know, nobody has independently found and verified the original microfilm containing those ads, although after the Honolulu Advertiser ad came to light, another ad from (allegedly) another newspaper was mentioned in a newspaper article. Where that ad came from, I don’t know. It depends upon whether or not one trusts the writer.

    Did he or she simply receive it from Obama’s people, a la the COLB? It wouldn’t surprise me.

    Journalism these days is a complete joke. “Research” is lacking. They are lapdogs who simply repeat whatever they’re sent via talking points. (Who was it who called them Obama’s stenographers?)

    In fact, a story at WND today says that the AP is going to take stories directly FROM Soros-funded “not for profits” and run them through all their outlets.

    At TD’s blog, back when this first came out, we pointed out the problems with the listed address: That the Obamas didn’t live there; that Obama Sr. lived in an apartment; that he allegedly also had a room in student housing on campus, where she couldn’t live with him; that people named Lefforge lived at the address in the ad; that the remaining long-time owner had JUST died, making it impossible to question HER whether or not the Obamas ever lived there; that Mr. Lefforge was a professor at the U of H AND friends with muckety mucks in the local Democratic party.

    I also asked TD very recently about the announcement. My question, last time I checked, hasn’t been answered, either.

    I seem to remember that TD was angry that people took her work without crediting it, so that particular post was taken offline.

    I remember that the anonymous poster was named Lori. I don’t know who she is. I do know her surname, but if she’s trying to stay anonymous, I’m not going to “out” her. I don’t know who she is or what her goal was. It may have been to learn the TRUTH, something which is sadly lacking in the Obamanation.

    Lori said that she called the Hawaiian source (I can’t remember if it was the newspaper or a library), asked for a copy of that page of vital records from the paper, and that’s what she received in the mail. Apparently, she forwarded a scan of the page to TD.

    TD had the intellectual honesty to post it on her blog, despite that she’s a political opponent of Obama and a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

    Another anonymous poster at TD’s blog recently stated that he or she had a friend go to the library in Hawaii and access the microfilm. If you believe this person’s account, the microfilm has exactly what’s posted online. However, can we believe ANYTHING anymore, without seeing it with our own eyes?

    It’s interesting that Obama’s lawyers neither proferred to the judge a certified copy OF the COLB OR a copy of that birth announcement. Isn’t it?

    IF those items are legitimate and since they are already in the public domain, then there’s no privacy issue involved and it would certainly be much more convincing to a judge to see the other side be forthcoming with PROOF to rebut the plaintiff’s allegations. Right?

    Miri: I am so glad you wrote this comment. 1) I ‘de-bunked’ APFC some time ago by passing on to people the information I obtained just by examining what they posted on their web site. But I had already discounted them because BO posted on his site, FTS, that they would offer an independent verification of his COLB. As I mention in this article, that struck me as absurd on its face. How can they be independent in relation to him when Annenberg is his former employer? (If I had the time to learn how to organize this blog, I could index to that information. Maybe I will do another post…) 2) The issue of the newspaper birth announcement is settled. There was none. BO said so, by asking the court to take judicial notice that APFC had mentioned it. In other words, if it was real, BO, having determined to bring it to the attention of the court, would have clearly said something like, ‘A birth announcement published contemporaneously in the Honolulu Advertiser was authenticated by (AP)FC, who posted a photocopy of that announcement on their web site.’ 3) FYI, the web site Oil for Immigration stole my post, entirely. But then OFI did something even worse than just copying my article with no prior notice or approval; they changed it without identifying the change. And they did it in the worst place. I used quotes from APFC; at the end of the quoted passage, I posted APFC’s link. OFI erased APFC’s link and inserted their web address into the article, as if to say, APFC was quoting them! As you can see, I credit td in this article (and, it turns out, the prior posting). ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      Thanks for the information. It takes a legal mind to keep up with the tricky ways of this im-POTUS.

      You said that there IS no birth announcement because of how Obama’s lawyers worded the footnote. Interesting.

      I wonder how the newspaper reporter received the other announcement, supposedly from another newspaper?

      As for your number 3, is this post (this one, to which I’m commenting) the one that OFI swiped? Amazing.

      I’ve never seen their site, but there certainly are a lot of plagiarists (or thieves) out there in the blogosphere.

      Miri: You’re welcome. Yes, this is the post that was stolen; and in so doing, the thief altered the article so as to strategically give himself credit for some of its contents but, in so doing, lessened the overall credibility of the piece. In other words, people who read this article on his blog might not take it seriously; and they should. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. MissTickly says:

    I case you haven’t seen what Donofrio said about your argument, I pasted it below:

    “[Ed. An interesting point is made in the linked article. here is the quote which interests me:

    If he had ‘evidence’ of eligibility with more gravitas than a photocopied COLB; or a phantom image of a newspaper birth announcement, he would have asked the federal judge to take judicial notice of that. And surely, if that announcement of birth in the Honolulu Advertiser meant anything, he would have posted this on FTS. (So, on what basis did NP and the DNC Certify BO is a NBC?)

    That makes perfect sense. And because it does we need to examine motive. There are only two motives:

    1. He doesn't have anything more than the COLB to show the nation.

    2. He does have it but he needed to keep attention on his lack of showing it as a smokescreen for the eligibility issue due to his British birth.

    Perhaps I will visit this issue in a blog post. It's not usually my beat, but I do like the thought process used in the link you provided. Something short and to the point might be beneficial.]”

    MissTickly: I suppose, better late to the party than never. The “eligibility issue due to his British birth” is not an actual ‘issue’ until the federal appellate court rules, it is. (In other words, until a case with the question of the meaning of that phrase at the heart of it, reaches the federal appeals court.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. MissTickly says:

    Also, I left this for Leo. I am not speculating about a hospital letter below, I am only wondering what other ‘vital recordS’ would have been used to verify NBC? If he had a long-form Original Birth Certificate that verfied it, they wouldn’t need more than one record to look at:

    “Is it fair to say that it took more than just a long form Birth Certificate (singular) for the DoH or the AG of Hawaii to verify NB Citizenship based on the following statement? It sounds like it took something supplemental as well, like an amended return with something considered ‘evidence’ of birth place or parental lineage, therefore Dr. Fukino says she has seen the “vital recordS” (plural). Letters from a hospital submitted LATE as proof of birth, for example, are considered ‘vital records.’ I know because I asked that myself.

    If already he had a long form BC that verfied NBC, that would be enough to verify it and no other records would have any relevance.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

  7. MissTickly says:

    I sent Okubo this just now:

    “What types of original “vital records” (plural) did Dr. Fukino see, that verify The President is a “natural-born American citizen.” according to her public statement below? I only want to know the type of records she looked at that the DoH maintains on file, not any information within the records.

    I also, want to know if an individual’s original long-form birth certificate maintained on file by the Hawaii DoH is enough to verify citizenship and birthplace if the DoH does not file and maintain any other vital records outside of an Original Birth Certificate for an individual?

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    MissTickly: Now, we just have to wait to see whether that term “vital records” was a reference to the actual section of the office called “vital records.” ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Carlyle says:

    Wouldn’t this be easy to figure out? Doesn’t the newspaper have public archives?

    Carlyle: Thank you for posting these questions. APFC named the Honolulu Advertiser on their site only because they were attributing the image and the statement underneath that image, to an anonymous blogger on td whose comments included the name of the Honolulu Advertiser. In other words, APFC copied both the blogger’s image and the comments accompanying her image. Now, re-read BO’s footnote, asking the court to take judicial notice that APFC noted a HI newspaper had printed a contemporaneous birth announcement. He did not mention the name of the newspaper that supposedly printed the announcement APFC noted. I can only speculate as to why; perhaps he knows what you know, that is, this would be so easy for the federal court to check. (So, why didn’t Annenberg Political Fact Check, check it?) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Carlyle says:

      Yes, but I mean wouldn’t it be easy for you, any or your friends (in Hawaii?), or industrious readers to go take a look? Then neither you or them would be speculating. I would seem to be VERY helpful to the cause to have PROOF that the newspaper thing is bogus. If nothing else it ought to make front page news on any number of Blogs and on WND and even Globe Magazine!

      Carlyle: I absolutely understand the feelings you express here, in which expression of such feelings you are joined by people throughout the blogosphere. Let’s focus on this line: “Then neither you or (sic) them (sic) would be speculating.” So, the question is, would not finding such reference establish, there was no such announcement? And the answer is no. Not finding such reference could mean, the reference is missing; or the archives were damaged; or the researcher is incompetent.

      I approach all of these document-posted-on-the-internet-authenticity issues by asking this question in advance: if the document is real, does it prove what the claimant (the person basing some claim on this document) says it does? If the answer is no, I don’t get involved in discussing whether the document is real. For example, if that newspaper announcement had been real, would it have proven BO was born in HI on August 4, 1961? And the answer is, no. Even if the newspaper postings were based on information automatically sent by the HI DoH upon registrations of birth, this does not prove the newspaper printed this announcement based on information received from the DoH. And, even if the newspaper received information from the DoH, this does not mean, the registration was in the form of a Certificate of Live Birth issued by a hospital or, a Certification issued by the DoH based on vital documents provided by the petitioner.

      So, in my article, I have established that, Annenberg Political Fact Check admitted they saw an image of a newspaper birth announcement for BO which was posted on another blog; swiped that image and posted it on their blog; and with no further investigation, declared this image constituted “clear evidence” BO was born in the U.S.A. In so doing, the lack of authenticity of both the document and the organization was thoroughly and permanently exposed. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Mick says:

    I remember that you made a similar post about the gravitas of Obama’s Colb rebuttal some month’s back. If the strongest evidence that he has is an inteernet screen shot from an Unsworn witness, then he has nothing at all. Of course, with the cases being dismissed, he doesn’t really have to respond with ANY evidence. I still like your Declaratory Judgement case with a Federalized National Guard call up as plaintiff. Of course Orly screwed up her chance with that line of attack.

    Mick: I have always thought the answer to BO’s eligibility question was so obvious. That is, it’s not up to me to prove you are not eligible; it’s up to you to prove, you are. I am still amazed people not only voted for a man who had refused to provide documentary evidence he was Constitutionally eligible for the job he was seeking; but also that they made excuses for his not doing so. (‘He doesn’t have to,’ or ‘If he shows you his (fill in the blank) then, you’ll just want something else.’) Slight clarification to your comment. I wanted Plaintiffs to be NG not yet federalized but facing deployment. Once they show up for deployment, they become federalized and, are subject to the UCMJ. This constrains questioning (the status of) their superiors. NG are under the authority of the state Governor. They can ask whatever questions they want. And here we all are, focused on BO’s eligibility to be POTUS, while the Treasury is looted (under the nose of a Secretary who didn’t pay his taxes). ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Zeeshopper says:

    Great post, jbjd. It looks like with the obama case, we need to read between the lines that are between the lies that are between the lines. The One is very smart, but when you lie you’re all over the place.

    I’ve been thinking of this for some time now… I feel that the breaking point of this mess is closer than we think.

    Keep up the great job!

    Z.

    Zeeshopper: Welcome; and thank you. I don’t think BO is very smart. (Read my article, “IF YOU THINK BO IS SO SMART, PROVE IT.”) But he has the advantage of the smartest minds around, to help him. I think that one of the main reasons the only people focusing on this issue of eligibility seem to be those of us in the blogosphere; is that generally, the best and the brightest are affiliated with either of the major political parties; and, whatever their cost/benefit analysis, they ultimately determined not to disrupt the status quo. This left the rest of us to try to sort this out. Given the head start of knowledge of those who put one over on us, I think we are doing all right. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      And by having the “smartest minds around” do and say everything for him, he maintains degrees of separation and, when necessary, toss those smartees under the proverbial bus.

      Thanks again, jbjd. You continue to nail it, by exposing the tricky words of these lawyers. I would hope that one of the judges would be as astute as you and read between the lines and realize that defendant’s lawyers are trying to put one over on the court.

      Miri: Not exactly. His name is on those pleadings; he is as blameworthy for deceiving the court as they are, although unlike them, he is no longer an officer of the court. And the judges generally only catch those deceptions when opposing counsel point out to them. I have no idea whether BO through counsel ever appeared in court to argue that Motion to Dismiss; or whether he ever argued orally in support of that mini-motion for judicial notice contained in footnote 1. For all I know, he never intended to argue the court should take judicial notice of anything, but rather only put that item there for us to see, presuming we would reason, the COLB together with the newspaper announcement must constitute proof he was born in HI, or else he would not have asked the court to take judicial notice. Ha; but now we know better, don’t we. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Socalannie says:

    Very interesting article, jbjd. I remember when td posted the ad and Miri’s comment covers that well. I also remember reading that blurb on the APFC and assumed they were referring to td. How bizarre that the only evidence of his eligibility in the Hollister case are the same old ridiculous colb and that little ad. I think the conclusions you come to in the last paragraph must be right.

    Socalannie: Welcome. Re-read that annotated footnote. BO did not actually reference that COLB to tell the federal court, APFC verified that he was born in HI. Rather, he says, they verified he had a real (document with the title of) COLB that says he was born in HI (from which he made a copy that he posted on his web site, FTS). He never said APFC verified with the HI DoH that their files contain an original COLB that looks just like that; or that they even contacted the DoH to verify the document was a real certified copy of their records. See the difference? And he never told the court the Honolulu Advertiser provided a copy of a birth announcement contemporaneous with his birth; he said, APFC noted a newspaper announcement on their web site. And they did, in the context of explaining, they had obtained the image we were looking at and this was “clear evidence” BO was born in the USA.

    But besides the convoluted obstructed language of the footnote, the fact that he put that footnote in a Motion to Dismiss is really bizarre. I figured, someone thought it was a good idea because if the court granted judicial notice (of a piece of evidence in a case that was about to be dismissed), they would bank on that, twisting it to mean, the court had noted, he is a NBC. Believe me, I was sweating that. So, he has some smart crooks backing him; but we have good minds, too. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Socalannie says:

      Ahh. Yes, I do see & thanks for pointing out the difference. Very very slick. This whole birth cert/nbc story never ceases to amaze me. Thanks for all the time & research you’ve put into this.

      Socalannie: Very very slick. And you are welcome; this is a labor of love. (Psychic benefits help.) ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Miri says:

    jbjd provided this text from a footnote in the lawsuit:

    “President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

    So, it depends upon what the meaning of “certified” is. Certified by FactCheck.org?

    A copy of A birth certificate. Not a copy of HIS birth certificate. Just a copy of “a” birth certificate.

    Not a copy of his original birth certificate. Possibly a copy of ONE of his birth certificates.

    Or possibly a copy of a completely bogus birth certificate, but one with a “certification” on it.

    A copy of “a” birth certificate SHOWING that he was born in Hawaii. Not PROVING that he was born in Hawaii. Just a copy of “a” birth certificate SHOWING that he was born in Hawaii.

    So, the copy of a birth certificate is making the claim that he was born in Hawaii.

    Obama’s not making the claim. He merely publicly produced A copy of A birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii.

    No comma between “certificate” and “showing”. So the phrase “showing that he was born in Hawaii” is part of the entire object of the verb “produced”.

    If it said, “produced a copy of a birth certificate, showing that he was born” in Hawaii, then the sentence would imply that the copy of the birth certificate is solid evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

    At least his lawyers admit that Obama publicly produced this copy.

    But think about it: Somebody else publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that Obama was born in Kenya.

    If plaintiffs’ attorneys had put that information into a footnote, would that make it true? Would that mean that the court finds that it’s true?

    Tricky, tricky, tricky.

    Miri: Excellent. You got it. Now, you are responsible for sharing your newly acquired expertise at reading between BO’s lines (and words and syllables) with others. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      Yes. We’re not in Kansas, anymore. And English doesn’t mean what it used to mean, either.

      Miri: I have been saying, we’re not in Chicago, TOTUS. (I made a note of your previous comment on top of the blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Miri says:

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/

    See if this link works. Let me know if it doesn’t. I was in the process of answering a question jbjd asked me yesterday, when I stumbled across this, which includes a recent update by TD.

  14. Kathy says:

    jbjd,

    Just wanted to express my appreciation for your excellent blog. You provide great legal reasoning (sans any hysteria that pollutes some of the other attorney sites out there)that helps those of us who are not attorneys to get a glimpse of how legal reasoning is used. I will be coming here often and will refer others here,too for a more sane and credible attorney site on the Obama Drama!

    Kathy: Thank you very much for such kind words. My purpose all along was to simplify the process for everyone else, once I understood ‘how things worked.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Kathy says:

    Dear jbjd,

    I’ve been corresponding with someone on the NBC issue and this is what he said:

    “I may have already responded to this, but will elaborate a bit. When we split from England there was no body of law upon which to rely by our new court system. Given that English law was already in place and the colonists were well acquainted with it,
    the Congress adopted the Common Law in 1787 to provide the legal infrastructure for our system of justice. As time has passed we’ve developed a comprehensive system of our own, but the Common Law continues where it has not been overturned by US court decisions or legislative action. There are numerous cases at Common Law that well establish the meaning of the term “natural born. I believe I provided a website where you may reference in detail the entire range of issues. If not it follows:

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/

    I am not an attorney, but I can read. There is no longer any doubt in my mind about the meaning of the term.”

    He admits he is not an attorney and neither am I, but this does not sound right. From my contracting background, I thought there were some common law concepts applied to commerce, but it has been too long to remember correctly. I believe I read in one of the web blogs something about this common law issue as pertaining to NBC status, but do not remember what it is. Could you enlighten us on this? Thanks!

    Kathy: Quick answer. Having studied this issue, I believe a strong legal argument exists that anyone born subject to the sovereignty of a nation other than the United States of America cannot be said to be a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution. However, the definition that matters must come from the federal appellate court (which includes the SCOTUS). ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Miri says:

    This is sort of off topic, but it’s interesting that in an editorial today, Farah of WND, takes credit for WND being the FIRST to report the existence of the birth announcement in the newspaper. All I can find to support that claim is a story from Oct. about Berg’s case, which cites Pam Geller’s site:

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-birth-no.html

    But notice that the person tipping Pam to the announcement claims that the research librarian had the info on hand, because someone else lately requested it. That someone else would be Lori who first reported the announcement at TD’s blog.

    Miri: See, this demonstrates the futility of trying to conclude whether the record evidences BO’s Constitutional eligibility has been established, by pouring over the authenticity of ‘documents’ posted on the internet. What is important is, given this clear lack of provenance, APFC said that image of the newspaper birth announcement constituted “clear evidence” BO is a NBC. See, the important point is not whether BO is a NBC; but rather that, logically, anyone who based a conclusion he is a NBC on the representation that APFC said he is, should now concede, no proof exists he is a NBC. More importantly, those members of Congress who ratified the EC vote for BO for POTUS based on APFC, needs to rescind such ratification through appropriate processes. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. STepper says:

    What codswallop. All any United States court has to do is take judicial notice of President Obama’s Hawai’ian certification of live birth and it’s all over. There is no need to provide any other information. One parent, no parent a citizen. It doesn’t matter. (US v. Wong Kim Ark.) Born here. 14th amendment. Game over.

    On the other hand, the issue is also non-justiciable, so no court will ever reach the merits. But if it did it would be game, match and set with the COLB.

    (Insult removed).

    STepper: Okay, I hear that you are angry with those of us who maintain BO has failed to establish his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS. But let’s stick to the facts. First, nothing in the 14th Amendment addresses the status of Natural Born Citizen contained in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Apples and oranges. (There is plenty of research on that issue posted all over the internet.) Now, let’s examine your conclusion concerning the COLB. You allege the ‘original’ of that COLB posted on FTS would prove that BO was born in HI; and that, if the court took judicial notice of that COLB then, it would be “game, match (sic) and set (sic)….” You rationalize that the only reason the court has not reached this issue (of citizenship), is that it is “non-justiciable” (sic). But recall that BO submitted a Motion to the court, which asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact, APFC said he was born in HI. By that action, he evidences the desire that the court give its official imprimatur on his claim, he is a citizen. (Keep in mind, on his FTS site, he conflates being a citizen with being a natural born citizen.) Why did he do that? Well, because his (natural born) citizenship was at the core of the case Hollister brought against him. So, if you are right that the COLB itself would have settled that issue, given BO’s demonstrated interest in settling that issue, why didn’t he submit that COLB to the federal court, asking the court to take judicial notice of that, instead of just asking the court to take notice that APFC said, it was real? ADMINISTRATOR

  18. STepper says:

    STepper: I cut out your comment for 2 (two) reasons. First, in ‘so many words,’ you again called the attorneys who disagree with you, names. Second, you engage what looks like a ‘legal’ argument as to the distinction between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen.’ Such discussion is outside of the scope of the analysis presented in this post. However, there are several on-line sites where you can engage in such discussions.

    But I did not omit your answer to the question I posed in my response to your previous post, because you provided no such answer. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. drkate says:

    jbjd. Brilliant sleuthing and excellent explanation! Comments here by all are so interesting as well and informative.

    wow. we are closing in!

    drkate: Thank you. This was right there under our noses… ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      Shout out to drkate!!!

      jbjd: You must be getting close if you’re attracting loyal opposition like STepper. Congrats!

      Miri: Thank you, I think; I did not recognize his name. I feel sorry that people like STepper have successfully been misled by BO to focus on the 14th Amendment. Until I ‘found’ that cached copy of an old iteration of FTS, I had no idea why so many people focused on the 14th Amendment to try to construct his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS. As soon as I saw that BO had posted the 14th Amendment – and recall, the text wasn’t on the front page of the FTS site, where everyone, including those of us who know better, would see it; no, you had to click to get there – I was angry, all over again at this callous display of contempt for the well-intentioned people who believed in his candidacy. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Miri says:

        Oh, I don’t recognize STepper, either, except via his/her arguments. What I meant is that if they are noticing you enough to come here and try, in vain, to shoot down your solid arguments with bogus but legal-sounding obfuscation, then you have indeed “arrived.”

        Miri: Oh, now I get it. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. 14th Amendment “could” only makes Obabama a born citizen, not a natural born citizen. There are two SCOTUS decisions that use Vattel, born in the country of citizen parents (plural) We dissected Justice Gray’s ruling at the Birthers, along with the term natural born citizen. I hope STepper reads it, it lays out the case very clearly,

    http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm

    theBirthers.org: I only posted this comment for anyone who wants to engage in such discourse. But I added the word “could” because, for the record, even if by virtue of expertise you could be said to be competent to ‘rule’ on BO’s legal status, without physical documentary evidence of such status, you have no idea whether he is a citizen, anyway. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. TeakWoodKite says:

    jbjd, the clarity of your writing is top shelf.

    “I’ll be back”. :)

    TWK: Thank you very much. I realized early on in this process that one of the reasons the people who would trivialize both the spirit and the letter of our Constitutional republic, were getting away with this; is that, the ‘process’ had become undecipherable to the average citizen. And this was not by accident. I had conducted extensive research on these issues throughout this election cycle and so, finding the origin of that phantom newspaper clipping APFC posted on their blog, the whole narrative crystallized in my head. After assembling the ‘evidence’ to support the narrative – and, given the rapidly disappearing internet ‘documentation,’ as well as the failure of the press to report on most of the items contained in my articles, just locating supporting information was a Herculean task – my biggest challenge was to make the narrative understandable for those who had not been as caught up with the minutia of these events, as I had been. Hopefully, I succeeded. (Please, when you come back, bring friends. The next post will describe where we go from here.) ADMINISTRATOR

  22. [...] on this subject precisely because of TD’s work.  And to this day, her work has been key to understanding the fraud perpetuated by Obama by refusing to prove his citizenship.  Thank you, TD and Judah Benjamin, for [...]

  23. [...] UPDATE: TD and her blog are “on break” for a while. One of the excellent posts to which TD referred was one by jbjd that showed that Annenberg Political Fact Check (APFC) does NOT check facts! [...]

  24. Gangster57 says:

    Set and follow a regular maintenance schedule for your well, and keep up-to-date records. ,
    Gangster57: I cannot say for certain what this means but, it made me smile. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. We have the truth; Mr. Obama has (limited) power.

    “‘What is truth?’ asked Pilate, and did not wait for an answer.”

    Usually, might overrules right, unless and until greater might rallies to the banner of the truth and the right:
    Moses vs. Pharaoh,
    David vs. Goliath and the Philistines,
    the Maccabees vs. the Seleucids,
    the Habsburg army vs. the Ottoman Empire,
    bad sailing weather vs. Gen. Cornwallis at Yorktown,
    Great Britain, the U.S., and the Allies vs. the Third Reich,
    Coalition forces led by the U.S. vs. Saddam Hussein and the Baathists of Iraq.

    But there are notable exceptions:
    Mahatma Gandhi in India,
    Dr. Martin Luther King in the U.S.,
    Lech Walesa in Poland,
    Desmond Tutu in South Africa.

    My great hope is for either Divine intervention or for Christians to be snatched away by the Lord Jesus Christ.

    But until that happens, Mr. Obama probably sees the U.S. armed forces rallying to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as the greatest threat to his usurpation. The military will not be intimidated or stopped by the Chicago Machine, the Mob, the Nation of Is|am, union outlaws and thugs, or law enforcement units loyal to the totalitarian regime.

    I would rather petition the Joint Chiefs of Staff than any other human institution.

    MinutemanCDC_SC: Welcome. I encourage non-violent citizen activism whether to petition state A’sG or, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    The birth announcement image on APFC article ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ no longer links to TD’s blog. The link is to the front page of the Honolulu Adviser and no birth announcement image can be found on that web page.

    Click on the birth announcement image;
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    This change with no explanation makes APFC look very unprofessional.

    I did find this article after a search and if you click on that birth announcement image, as you can see, it’s a different image.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

    This change with no explanation also makes APFC look very unprofessional.

    azgo: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA … Tinkering with the glitches I exposed that gave away the campaign for the bogus candidate in the 2008 election cycle, signals Obama’s handlers are gearing up for a 2012 run. (Bet my D.C. numbers are skyrocketing!) Good thing I took a screen shot of this bogus announcement on APFC, before it disappears altogether! ADMINISTRATOR

  27. [...] back in August 2009 I published an article on this blog entitled, RUMORS, LIES, and UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ in which I established that Annenberg Political FactCheck (“APFC”), the source often [...]

  28. [...] jbjd – I really wish the bad feelings you currently have for some other bloggers that apparently prevents you from understanding the value of at least some of their work, specifically this irrefutable evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s birth certificate is a fake could be moderated. We live in layman land and easily understand such things.  “[B]ad feelings” which “prevents (sic) [me] from understanding the value of at least some of their work”?  If I reject the work product of another blogger as being irrelevant to the stated goal of establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job, then this rejection is based on my reasoned belief, it fails to add value to such pursuit.  Worse, it detracts from the real work of citizen education which must occur before real change will happen.  How many posts (and reads) over how many months were wasted on trying to refute my admonition, there exist no contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements of Obama’s birth?  Common sense said these did not exist, as any claim they did exist failed to reference any evidence of such publication which could be independently verified! RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ [...]

  29. [...] He says FactCheck confirmed 2 contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements.  (But see, for example, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) [...]

  30. blogger wordpress…

    [...]RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ « jbjd[...]…

  31. [...] months earlier, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job of President.   (See on this blog, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’; and IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE [...]

  32. [...] of the President’s Certification of Live Birth, and accompanying ad copy, were real. (See RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) Assuming she is being sincere in this heated exchange with John Sununu from the Romney campaign; [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: