…says Mississippi PI in a signed, but not notarized “affidavit.”
Mississippi investigator Jorge L. Baro says that he swore (although the notary’s signature is blank) that some unnamed people he hired told him that they had talked to Beatrice Arakaki in Hawaii and that she told them that 47 years ago in 1961 there was no black baby living next door to her at the address in the Sunday Advertiser announcement of Obama’s birth.
#6085 Kalanianaole circa 1961 – Honolulu Advertiser
According to the Honolulu Advertiser, it was practice to get birth announcements from the Health Department via a news service, not from private submissions, as evidenced by that fact that two independent newspapers had the same announcement with the same announcements for other infants before and after. The announcement had to come from the Health Department, via the birth registration. So what gives? Did they live there or not? It all becomes clear with careful reading and examination of the evidence.
Option A
Let’s assume for a moment that everything that Baro says about the interview is true (but not perhaps complete).
Look carefully at the signed statement from the Mississippi PI, Baro from which the information related to Obama residences comes.
[Baro writes:] Investigators contacted Beatrice Arakaki, who lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu, Hawaii. Ms. Arakaki’s residence is next door [sic] to the alleged residence of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama Sr. at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway at the time the Senator was born in 1961. Ms. Arakaki said she has lived at her current residence on Kalanianaole since before 1961 to the present day. Ms. Arakaki said she had knowledge of the family living in Waikiki and not on Kalanianaole Highway.
Now exactly who is “the family” in that sentence? It clearly says “Stanley Ann Dunham [sic] and Barack H. Obama Sr.” lived elsewhere. It does not say that Stanley Ann’s parents, Stan and Madelyn Dunham, didn’t live there. Indeed, we know that Stan and Madelyn Dunham did live on Kalanianaole Highway from 1960 to 1963 as evidenced by an article from the Honolulu Advertiser:
[Stanley Ann] and her parents, Kansas couple Stan Dunham, a furniture store operator, and Madelyn Dunham (”Toot,” to Obama), a bank cashier, had come to Hawai’i in 1960 and moved into the Kalaniana’ole location. … By 1963 the Dunhams had moved into Apartment 110 of a six-year-old building at 1427 Alexander Street, records show.
Since the Dunham’s did live next door, it makes perfect sense that Ms. Arakaki would know where the Obama family, her neighbor’s kids, lived as she claimed. If the Dunham family did NOT live next door, how in the world would Ms. Arakaki know where some obscure college kids who had only been in the city a year lived?
Since the Dunhams lived at the birth registration address, it would not have been criminal or fraudulent for Stanley Ann to have put down her mother’s address as her “usual residence”, especially if she were in transition from one place to another, or was unsure where they were going to live, or if (as the newspaper suggested) they intended to or actually did live in the “cottage out back”. There are half a dozen perfectly legal, harmless and plausible reasons why Stanley Ann Obama would have listed her parents’ address on her hospital form.
Because we have no transcript of the Arakaki interview, only a biased summary, we do not know how much other information was provided that could totally change the meaning of the interview.
There is simply nothing in this record that credibly challenges the birth announcement.
Option B
Is the Arakaki interview essentially true? The comments to this article suggest that it is not, and that public records show that Arakaki did not live at the house in question in 1961. (See comments.) In that case, we would assume that the “usual address” of Stanley Ann Obama was indeed 6085 Kalanianaole Highway (perhaps in the cottage out back). The birth registration would have made no assertion that she lived there with Barack Obama Sr. We know they were soon separated and eventually divorced. We don’t know that they were still living together on August 4, 1961. Indeed there is a lot we don’t know about the early details of the Obama marriage, and no one is left alive that can tell us. We do, however, have a newspaper birth announcement which is about all we can rely on at this point.
[Updated]
Evidence from a contemporary city directory confirms that the Dunhams lived at 6085 Kalanianaole, and that Ann Obama lived with them.
The “affidavit” is not valid unless it is notarized by a Notary Public.
Affidavits
An affidavit is a voluntary, sworn written statement.
The name of the affiant, the person giving the statement, must be mentioned in the affidavit and the affiant is required to sign the affidavit in the notary’s presence.
Yep, third hand info. LOL He said, she said, they said. I think you call this “rumors”.
Admin,
After doing some Google Maps work (using 6075 Kalanianaole Hwy, Honolulu, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821 to search with), the unlikely possibility of 6085 being immediately next door to 6075 may in fact exist.
The starting address of the the cross street to the west, Paeoki Drive, begins with 6041 and the cross street to the east, Kuliouou Road, has a starting address of 6101.
Using the satellite view, there are only 5 likely structures out of 6 between these two cross streets that face the Kalanianaole Hwy. These are fairy large dwellings that may have multiple address within one structure itself. Judging by the high $600K to the low $700K price range I found on a few of the local real estate sites for these properties, multiple addresses within each structure seems likely to be the current set up. Only a local inspection would settle the matter for sure at any rate.
So while I can’t vouch for scale or the accuracy of Google Maps, the unconventional possibility of 6075 to 6085 does exist.
The theory that this 80 something year old neighbor should know who has lived “next door” and for how long does not address the reported trip east Obama’s mother made to see Obama’s father, who at that point was attending Harvard, approximately a month after Obama’s birth in tow. This leaving of Hawaii soon after giving birth is further confirmed by interviews given to the press by some of Stanley Ann Dunham’s high school classmates and friends who said that she stopped back to visit them in Washington state on her way to Massachusetts.
George, in 1961 it was a single-family dwelling. I’ve added a photo to my article above. Baby Barack was only there a year at most.
Thanks for the additional info, Admin.
After reading the linked Honolulu Advertiser article, it appears that the 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy. address may have also included the cottage behind the main house of the same address.
Makes you wonder if the recollection of Beatrice Arakaki isn’t clouded by the turn over of all the occupants of that rear cottage dwelling and is just focusing on the main house’s residents. If the affidavit is to believed and indeed credible that is.
As far as baby Barack being there for a year at most, I’d be more inclined to think it was even less than that considering the new mother and son left for the east coast to visit his father a month or so after Barack was born.
This just in from East L.A. Obama was born in East L.A. on the eve of December 25th, in a mechanics garage, where 3 wise-azz drug dealers came bearing nickel bags. His birth mother was best friend of Ms Durham, gave him up that night when Sydney was flying to Hawaii. She met Barrack Sr. in a Tiki bar, they shared a dozen Mai Tai’s and the rest is history.
You guys win, he’s born in the U.S. and is without a doubt a NBC. Now onto bigger more dangerous things, like an $819 billion pork barrel spending with minimal to do with helping the economy. Agree with that crazy bill and your saying you don’t care if your grandkids grandkids are stuck with the debt, at least you’ll survive for a couple more years.
Glad we finally got that settled. I’m not an economist, so I won’t bother you with my largely uninformed opinions on the stimulus package.
Except, please everyone, write your Senators and Representative and ask for parity for mental health and physical health funding in the package. Currently mental health is excluded.
‘Since the Dunhams lived at that address when Obama was born, it would not have been criminal or fraudulent for Stanley Ann to have put down her mother’s address as her “usual residence”, especially if she were in transition from one place to another”
Good point. When I was in undergrad, I used my parents address as my primary address, even though I had a small temporary apartment near my University.
Haven’t we all?
Dr.C may I say that I am amazed at Miss Beatrice Arakaki memory ability to remember who lived by her way back in the 60’s. I can’t even remember what I’ve done 5 months ago or who lived by me 2 years ago at my previous address.
Anywho, why is this even important? Why do the nuts out there think this is some kind of smoking gun?
Also why are all these so-called “professionals” (Berg, Orly, this PI, etc) are so sloppy with their work?
I mean I am just saying…..you know what I am saying? HA HA
Ah the never ending twist and turns. I predict the madness will go on as long as Obama is in office.
Beatrice Arakaki is only 41 years old, so it’s not surprising she has no memory of them. 🙂
http://www.people-finders.ws/Summary.asp?fn=Beatrice+&mn=&ln=Arakaki&dobmm=&dobdd=&doby=&city=&state=&age=&vw=&Search=&Input=&x=51&y=11
(Notice the names of relatives, because a search of the Kalanianaole property address turns up Charles and Miyoko, so we know this is the correct Beatrice Arakaki.)
However, in further searching, I believe the MelissaData record got the age wrong, and Beatrice M. Arakaki and Miyoko Arakaki are the same person. This site shows Beatrice as 80.
http://www.mylife.com/peopleSearch.do?searchFirstName=beatrice&searchLastName=ARAKAKI&searchAge=
There are no other records for “Beatrice” anywhere, everything is “Miyoko.”
From tax records: Charles and Miyoko bought the Kalanianaole property in 1992 and added Mr.& Mrs. Okabayashi to the deed in 1994. Put in the property address then click on “parcel ID” to poke around the “details.”
http://www.honolulupropertytax.com/AddressSearch.asp?mnu=PSearch&submnu=Address&lftmnu=&flag=&nolistmanager=&cookieCheck=0&Number=6075&Street=Kalanianaole&Suffix=&Direction=&Submit=Search
“Permits” show a permit pulled in 1994 and “residential” shows the current home was built in 2006. See home details and map at :
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6075-Kalanianaole-Hwy-Honolulu-HI-96821/617731_zpid/
The county recorder verifies the 1994 conveyance.
http://bocweb.dlnrbc.hawaii.gov/boc/search.php?SearchBy=GE&LastName=arakaki&FirstName=charles+s&BusName=&DateFrom=&DateTo=&DocType=A&SortBy=date_des&Nrec=12&submit1=Start+Search#
So for further verification I checked US Public Records Index in Ancestry.com, which shows Charles and Miyoko living at:
1630 Liholiho St #1802, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-0201 (1992)
and then
6075 Kalanianole Hy, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821-0901 (1993)
So, the Arakaki family did not live there in the 60’s.
But even if we allow that Beatrice Arakaki has a phenomenal memory, what she said in no way contradicts an assertion that the Dunham family lived at the address, and if they did, the birth announcement is fine.
Longer.
Baro’s affidavit is garbage and would never be accepted by any court. Another possibility: IIRC, the property at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was owned by Mr. & Mrs. Orland Lefforge. Mr. Lefforge was a professor at U. of Hawaii. Obama’s mother and father were students at U. of Hawaii. Hmmm. Could it possibly be that the Lefforges liked to rent their property to university students?
You know birferdom has been thoroughly debunked when we’re down dealing with obscure footnotes like this
I love you Obots !!!
This is what is called RESEARCH !!
Barack Obama himself and other witnesses affirm that the Dunhams’ first address in Hawaii was Kamehameha Av; they moved to University Ave in 1963, then to S. Beretania in 1967. Barack Obama’s father first lived on campus at U of Hawaii; his 1961 address is officialy recorded and acknowledged by family and friends as 625 11th Ave.
Not a shred of evidence links the Dunhams or Obamas to Kalanianaole Hwy. Kalanianaole only surfaced in connection with the Obamas in July 2008. I don’t think a commemorative plaque on the old homestead will be nailed up anytime soon.
FALSE. The birth announcements published in 1961 are admissible evidence showing that address under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803.
The truth appears to be (A) that there is not a shred of evidence that the Obamas did NOT live there at the time of Barack’s birth, and (B) it is irrelevant in any case.
A. There was a hearsay statement attributed to a purported neighbor claiming that she did not remember the the Obamas living there, but other research has shown that said neighbor did not purchase the property next door until more than 30 years after Obama’s birth — so it now appears unlikely that such testimony exists.
B. It is irrelevant because the issue is where Obama was born, not where his parents resided at the time.
Your facts are confused.
“It’s feasible” and “it’s possible” can only mean that the Advertiser doesn’t know anything other than what the 1961 newspaper announcements are saying: the reporter clearly has nothing to corroborate his seemingly bewildered and convoluted speculations. Try this instead:
“Obama’s father had been living in a nondescript concrete dormitory building just inside the campus while he and Ann dated….After the marriage and his son’s birth, Obama’s father moved his new family into a small, one-story white house [625 11th Ave.] situated not far down a hilly, narrow road from the university and across from a small park.” David Mendell, OBAMA: From Promise to Power, 2007.
Mendell: 1) Obama Sr was living on campus; 2) Obama Sr moved to 11th Ave.
This quote is important because Mendell (uniquely) interviewed the Obama family (including grandmother Madelyn and sister Maya) in 2004, four years before the revelation that the Obama’s were allegedly living at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway came via the discovery of newspaper announcements of Obama Jr’s birth, drawing their information from his birth certificate. Mendell was toured around by Maya and his biography contains not one mention of Kalanianaole Highway. Obama Jr does not mention Kalanianaole Highway in his autobiography either, which is strange as he writes in this book about finding his birth certificate, and that should have shown Kalanianaole Highway as his parents’ address.
The tortured construction of an important paragraph from the Advertiser story obscures the following assumed chronology:
1962 Obama Sr. had separated from his wife and child
1962-3 Dunhams had moved into Apartment 110 of a six-year-old building at 1427 Alexander Street
1963 Ann Obama’s address was listed in a university directory as 2277 Kamehameha Ave
Obama Sr did NOT separate from wife and child, as not very subtly hinted, in 1962. Ann Dunham left Hawaii and registered for classes at U of Washington in August 1961, no more than three weeks after Jr’s birth. Ann met with high-school friends during that August, her address and phone werre listed in Seattle, and friends and babysitter confirm her long residence (with no income it can safely be surmised that her parents were paying the rent). Obama Sr did not see “wife” and child again for ten years (1971). Dunham did not return to Hawaii until months after Obama Sr had left for Harvard. In a local newspaper interview with Sr just before his departure there was no mention of a local family. The Advertiser’s confusion about or ignorance of these serious domestic facts should caution us as to its reporter’s dedication to accuracy.
It should be noted that it is the Advertiser’s reporter who is further confused, given that earlier Advertiser articles only mention two Dunham homes before S Beretania. This article implies that the Dunhams moved to a lowrent Alexander Street apartment first, and then later Ann registered at UH from an address at Kamehameha. No mention of her long stay in Seattle, no other mention of Kamehameha. Dr. Conspiracy’s italicizing the Kamehameha “fact” in the report indicates he has swallowed whole the suggestion that Ann Dunham separately moved to this NEW address in 1963, and from within Hawaii immediately after separating from Obama Sr. This cannot be so as Kamehameha was the Dunhams’ first address in Hawaii (eg see “Dreams of My Father”) and Ann had been living off island. It’s significant that the graphic accompanying the story shows no Dunham address for 1960 or 1961. The apartment at Alexander was so small that its safe to surmise that, instead of vacating the family home in Kamehameha for Ann and Jr, the Dunham’s rented Alexander for their daughter, as they had done in Seattle. When Ann returned to UH she moved back in with her parents, resumed her old address for registration, and saved her parents money with instate tuition and a single household. More than feasible, therefore easier to believe – unless one just doesn’t want to.
If your reconstruction of history is accurate, how do you explain the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address on the birth announcement? You may say that it’s wrong, but why would it be wrong? Why would Stanley Ann make up a fake address? It makes no sense. The only explanation consistent with your view that makes any sense to me is that there was a transcription error between the birth certificate and the list sent to the newspapers, which would mean nothing.
You said: “Kamehameha was the Dunhams’ first address in Hawaii (eg see “Dreams of [sic] My Father”)”
Do you have a page number with that? The narrative in Dreams from My Father isn’t very linear.
WAYK wrote:
But of course Maya hadn’t been born at the time and there is no reason for her to have even known where her mother lived. I don’t know the address of the first house my parents lived in after I was born either. As for Obama’s autobiography, I haven’t found ANY addresses in it. The “birth certificate”, depending on exactly what it was, might or might not have had an address on it.
I am not sure why the minor mystery of the address in any way shows that President Obama was not born in Honolulu, just as the COLB states?
It’s the facts not our ignorance about such minor details which seem far more relevant. Of course, conspiracy thrives in areas of the unknown, allowing them to “fill in the details” with imagination and personal bias.
So let’s take the very reasonable approach that when Obama was born, and Obama Sr lived in campus housing. Ann Dunham lived on Kalanianaole Highway and after Obama was born, they needed their own place and moved in.
Of course, where the ‘Obamas’ lived really has no impact on the natural born status. But of course it seems to be used to suggest that something nefarious must have happened making any established fact suspect.
I understand that when lacking evidence, it’s best to focus on the lack thereof.
Why would the grandmother and sister have any recollection of an address that Obama’s mother might have occupied for a short time 43 years previously? Obama’s sister is several years younger than him — there is no way she would have ever had such information. I couldn’t tell you all the addresses where my own offspring (in their 20’s) have lived in the past half dozen years…. and I doubt that my father could tell anyone where I was living when I was in my 20’s, beyond the name of the city. Given what we know of the Obama/Dunham marriage, its safe to assume that they didn’t live very long at Kalanianaole Highway.
How about this for a simple explanation? Sometime during the summer of 1961, after the end of spring term at UH, Barack Sr. rented the cottage in back of the prof’s house as a suitable place to live with his wife & expected baby – probably June or July at the earliest. However, within 2 weeks after Barack’s birth, the parents had a huge fight, during which Barack Sr. revealed that he was still married to wife #1 in Africa — and Stanley Ann left him and ran off to Washington, baby in arms, to stay with her friends, meaning that the cottage was occupied by the Obamas for 2 months at most, and possibly as little as 2 weeks (if their move in day had been August 1).
The book doesn’t say what form of birth certificate he found, whether it had an address listed, or whether he even noted it. It could have been one of those unofficial hospital certificates with the footprints but no address. Or, it could be that Obama didn’t pay attention to the address at the time — in the book he doesn’t say he looked at the certificate, he says he found an article about his father “folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms” — it is obvious that in that context his focus is on trying to learn about his father.
It is a huge error to rely on “Dreams from my Father” as a complete historical record, as Obama himself noted at the time that there were some facts changed for purposes of the narrative; in particular he employed the literary device of introducing some characters with fictional names who were actually combinations of multiple individuals Obama knew. If he’s going to combine 2 or 3 different people and give them a new name, its fair to assume that similar shortcuts will be taken in terms of describing places.
“Why would Ann Dunham make up a false address” should be re-phrased to “Why would the birth informant make up a false address ? ” Only the original record can tell us who that was, and details on that document might indicate a context for why Kalanianaole was given. If anyone can provide tangible evidence which is something more than a circular “it’s true because it says it’s true” all discussion stops. Unfortunately, not one person or piece of paper has emerged to confirm the address from the newspaper announcements.
Newspaper announcements – plural: a list, published in two newspapers, with the same data in the same order. The original Vital Records list must contain the Kalanianaole Highway address and that list was compiled using completed records as supplied. The likelihood that Kalanianaole Highway address made it into the list via a completed Certificate in any way other than being provided by the birth informant is infinitesimal.
There must be very few people born in America 30 or 40 years ago who haven’t seen their own birth certificate, their parents’ address on it, and know the circumstances of their birth which confirm the address. That Ann Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of her son’s birth to return to Washington State, and study there as a single parent, is information nowhere to be found in any written account of his life by Barack Obama Jr: all the more suprising given Barack Jr has acknowledged his mothers help in preparing the manuscript.
Neither Mendell nor any other biographer or journalist was given this information by Obama or his relatives. Mendell was told by Obama Jr’s relatives that Sr, “wife”, and child moved into 11th Ave after the child’s birth: if that really happened the family’s stay was extremely short, two weeks or less. No author or journalist was told by the family that Ann and son had moved to 11th Ave from Kalanianaole (if they did) or moved from Kalanianaole to Washington state. There are witnesses for Ann’s move to Seattle, and witnesses from before the “moves” to Kalanianaole and 11th Ave (if they happened), but none for Ann at Kalanianaole and 11th Ave. Obama Sr’s friends visited with him at 11th Ave but none report ever seeing Ann or child there, not even the Abercrombies. No friend reports Obama Sr’s departure to Kalanianaole or visiting with him there, and Mr O liked to party.
It makes no sense for Stanley, Madelyn, Anne, and Obama Sr or the young couple to decamp 8 miles to a high-toned property in Kalanianaole when they were all working or studying in Honolulu and lived there already. It makes even less sense when the only thing that brought them all together would have been Ann’s pregnancy, which occurred within six weeks of Ann meeting Obama Sr. With a house in Kamehameha it does not make sense for the Dunhams to set up with or send away their pregnant 18 yr old daughter and prospective father to Kalanianaole, especially if she or Obama Sr did not have an automobile. It makes even less sense for the Dunhams, a furniture salesman and secretary, to have the means to finance all this: not least because the Dunhams kept their original Kamehameha home.
Perhaps there are scenarios that can be imagined to account for an address (Kalanianaole) which no witnesses knew or visited and for which no associated record exists except an otherwise unverified birth record entry. Whatever the story about Kalanianaole getting into Jr’s birth record, few in the Dunham\Obama family were aware of Kalanianaole or they were not prepared to talk about it with outsiders. Dr Conspiracy says Maya may not know many details of her brother’s birth: given Obama’s concentrated search for his identity and roots and his unique willingness to publicly discuss such unusual events, it requires some stretch to believe Barack’s grandparents, mother, sister, and himself did not have any discussions over the years. Which makes their reticence decades later about living at 6085 Kalanianaole and Ann’s leaving Hawaii with her son immediately after his birth very hard to fathom: what’s to hide ?
“You said: “Kamehameha was the Dunhams’ first address”…As for Obama’s autobiography, I haven’t found ANY addresses in it.” Dr Conspiracy
“…I saw him, a tall, dark figure who walked with a slight limp [Obama Sr 1971] …Beside him, a cane with a blunt ivory head…There was a fragility about his frame…the five of us in my grandparents’ living room most evenings, during the day on drives around the island or on short walks past the private landmarks of a family: the lot where my father’s apartment had once stood; the remodeled hospital where I had been born; my grandparents’ first house in Hawaii, before the one on University Avenue, a house I had never known…” “Dreams From My Father”
Obama Sr: fragile, limping, with a cane. Father and son go on short walks to a) father’s apartment [11th Ave], and b) grandparents’ first house in Hawaii. The apartment was about 3 miles from the Dunham apartment at 1617 S Beretania. The house at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy is 8 miles distant: no mention of any trip or “short walk” out there. Of the visited locations, which would qualify as a short walk for a fragile, limping man with a stick ? Only 2277 Kamehameha Ave, 1 mile from 1617 S Beretania. Of the addresses with which the Dunhams have been associated, which was a HOUSE, a SHORT WALK from S Beretania, and BEFORE University Avenue ? Only 2277 Kamehameha Ave fits. Therefore 2277 Kamehameha was the Dunhams’ first house in Hawaii. Furthermore the apartment at 625 11th Ave Obama calls his father’s apartment, not his FAMILIY’S apartment.
“I am not sure why the minor mystery of the address in any way shows that President Obama was not born in Honolulu, just as the COLB states?” NBC
When someone is held to the standard of the rules of evidence, it’s not a little ironic when those shouting loudest for that standard fail to apply it to Obama’s “COLB”, which is an edited and inadmissible online image, and even as an image satisfies none of the strict criteria courts require of digital photographs. An act of faith in that image is evidence of something, but not of Obama’s birth in Honolulu. I am willing to allow Obama’s online “COLB” into discussion but only on the perfectly reasonable expectation that we subsequently exchange ideas as free and intelligent citizens in a democracy, not as adversaries maneuvering in a courtroom. We can have the latter but you must, therefore, sacrifice Obama’s online “COLB”. Which leaves you with what ? To be honest I think Obama has made that decision for you.
You don’t have to depend on the “scanned” COLB. You Can go to Obama’s Chicago Office and see the original. Many, like the DNC, have done this. That includes the anti-Obama news site “WND”, WND’s forensic experts found it authentic though they buried the story after their readers complained. You won’t go examine it though, will you? That would undermine your “Birtherness”.
Link to WND’s buried article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
where they state “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.”
WAKY,
You may rephrase the question to “Why would the birth informant make up a false address?”, but you still haven’t provided a plausible scenario to explain your contention that the address is false, or that it matters. Your reconstruction of history would be much more persuasive if there were an underlying story to hold it together.
You said: “The original Vital Records list must contain the Kalanianaole Highway address and that list was compiled using completed records as supplied. The likelihood that Kalanianaole Highway address made it into the list via a completed Certificate in any way other than being provided by the birth informant is infinitesimal.”
There is the possibility of clerical error transcribing the addresses between the birth record and the newspaper lists (switching lines). While that possibility is unlikely, it is not “infinitesimal.”
For the record, I was in my 40’s before I ever saw my birth certificate, when I ordered one to get a passport. And until I looked at it 5 minutes ago, I did not know the address of the house I grew up in. I still don’t. The street address on the birth certificate repeats the name of the town (there is no street with the same name as the town).
So where was Dunham’s furniture store?
You treat 47-year-old memories as if they were security camera recordings and Obama’s comment in his memoir (where they drove and where they walked) as if it a carefully prepared and researched legal brief. One can take any historical event not meticulously recorded at the time, and find contradictions in the account just because there are human witnesses and time involved. You’re finding poodles in the clouds.
Indeed, you change events yourself between paragraphs: you wrote: “Obama Sr: fragile, limping, with a cane” while the original said “slight limp” and “fragility about his frame”. You’re coloring the facts to make it fit your own purposes, and there you lose a lot of credibility as far as I’m concerned. You’re exaggerating parts of the evidence (e.g., Obama’s investigation) and downplaying others. That gives you even more latitude to distort the already fuzzy historical picture.
Without a theory, you have nothing but the the normal vagaries of events that happened a long time ago. This is why the courts, as Expelliarmus points out, prefer contemporary documentary evidence.
Just for the record the book is “Dreams from My Father” (capital D, M and second F).
Actually the “faith” rests on the total implausibility of a US Senator releasing a fake birth certificate, Hawaiian officials who state that his birth was duly registered in Hawaii (and maintain that declaration on the State Health Department web site to this day), and the inspection of the paper COLB by an independent fact checking organization, FactCheck.org. (Oh, and there were those contemporary newspaper birth announcements that you haven’t proven false.)
And if we’re talking “rules of evidence”, everything you have is either hearsay or inconclusive. Surely you don’t claim Baro’s “affidavit” passes the rules of evidence.
The denial of overwhelming evidence is evidence of something, and it’s not Obama being born in Kenya. I won’t speculate on your reasons for going down the rabbit hole.
If I had my choice of believing Polarik, or WND, I pick “none of the above”.
True, however WND got a lot of flack when they reported BC as “authentic”, they took link off line (but is still in archive). Many Birhters quote WND articles (except for this one)
WND is a fundie site, and as many of you well know, fundies tend to lie!
I understand why you would not want the COLB into the discussion as indeed Obama has made his COLB available for inspection and the results once again overwhelmingly support that President Obama was born on US soil.
Your objections are now that the documents do not meet the legal standard, however the original certification does and has been provided. Combine the photos with the scans and there is no evidence that the document was doctored.
If a case involving Obama ever makes it past the legal requirements which you seem to hold so dear, of standing, stating a claim and mootness, then a simple action by the court could establish quickly the veracity of the document. No need to get access to the vault copy. All that is needed is to have Obama have the certificate mailed to the court for in camera inspection.
I am not sure why you are discussing rules of evidence when you have no evidence that the address was somehow wrong. In fact, again circumstances dictate that a much simpler explanation exists.
As such no legal maneuvering is needed, as the facts speak for themselves. Obama has made the decision for all of us by making all these data available.
The advertisements in two separate newspapers show that Obama’s birth was registered within about a week’s time. All that remains is a minor mystery about the address used.
WAYK is continuing to make much out of nothing by suggesting that since the address cannot be confirmed or denied, that somehow there is evidence of something nefarious, even though there appear to be no credible or even plausible scenarios presented as to why we should even accept his claim that the address was falsified.
Of course, we also learn why he insists on the address being false, or unconfirmed, namely that this can be resolved by gaining access to the original birth certificate. However, that is not relevant, all that matters is that the COLB, which is prima facie legal evidence, shows the city of birth for Obama to be Honolulu. Nothing is going to change this simple fact.
In other words, it seems that the ‘controversy’ is once again nothing more than a manufactroversy to gain access to Obama’s birth certificate.
Now, lacking standing and all, is making gaining access to any information somewhat problematic, but worse, this requires one to ignore the fact that a COLB was in fact presented for examination to an extent which has shown the certification to be a valid document which shows the location of birth to be Honolulu HI, thus making Obama a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to serve as our President, just as the Congress, the electoral college, the States and the voters decided.
Again WAYK is making fanciful hypothetical scenarios which believe indicate something nefarious while ignoring a far simpler explanation.
Why is that?
Wayk Claims
Mendell was told by Obama Jr’s relatives that Sr, “wife”, and child moved into 11th Ave after the child’s birth:
Where was Mendell told what and by whom?
All I have found so far is
After the marriage and his son’s birth, Obama’s father moved his new family into a small, one-story white house situated not far down a hilly, narrow road from the university and across from a small park.
Was it this second hand story?
Obama biographer David Mendell reports that Barack Obama Senior rented a small one floor house near the campus of the University of Hawaii around this time, ostensibly as a home for his young wife and their new son. It’s not clear how much time the Barack Obama Senior family spent there together living under the same roof.
Did you even care to double check with the original source which makes no such ostensible claims.
A prior inconsistent statement reduces the force of WND testimony, if the insistence is still on rules of evidence. Personally I am entirely uninterested in WND (I’ve read the stories you reference) because they are no one in this case. Of the same order as The Mombasa Bugle-Champion throwaway claiming Obama influenced the twin cities program with Honolulu because he was born there. They did or didn’t ? He did or didn’t ? richCares, who cares… Your claim that WND and many others have gone to the Obama’s Chicago Office to examine Obama’s paper COLB would be headline news indeed – but I haven’t seen those headlines. Suggest you review the material for accuracy.
We have 9 separate digital photo images taken by Factcheck.org to start with — plus the confirmation from the Director of the Hawaii Dept. Health that all is proper.
The problem with the conspiracy theorists is that (A) there is NO evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii (no testimony, no documents, etc); (B) it is not even plausible that Obama would have or could have been born anywhere else … except maybe Washington state, also in the US, since apparently Obama’s mother was there with the baby sometime in the weeks or months following the birth; (C) You would have us believe in some massive conspiracy involving elaborate planning at the time of Obama’s birth and involving the highest state officials in Hawaii, and at the same time you would have us believe that Obama would have been stupid enough to post a clumsily forged birth certificate online weeks before the Democratic convention at a time when his nomination could still have been derailed by some late breaking scandal. If the head of the Department of Health in Hawaii says they have his birth certificate — then there clearly is a birth certificate available to be produced in any court.
I was just wondering if somewhere there is a phone book or city directory from 1961 that would tell us where the Duhmams really lived when they first came to Hawaii. This would be reliable documentary evidence, and not require faulty human memory.
“but I haven’t seen those headlines”
then take off the blinders,you can easily see that factheck did it as did the DNC.
one thing about Birthers is they avoid checking out anything that disputes their beliefs, they could easily hire a forensic specialist and go to Obama’s HQ and check the authenticity of the BC as did fachcheck.org. But they won’t, as I suggested WAYK to go and check it (that was ignored, wow why check). Checking this out would destroy their talking points. Come on Birthers get funds together to hire a forensic specialist and prove this issue, but we know you won’t! You will have some fake expert prove the scanned web image is a fake. You people are way too full of hate to check anything!
Because IF that happened, it is irrelevant to Obama’s life story, and possibly something that Ann hid from her son as part of her efforts to painting a rosier picture of her marriage and relationship to Obama’s father. And I put “if” because what is your source? Third hand, hearsay reports from a news article online that could be as subject to erroneous reporting as anything else.
But you think it “makes sense” for Obama’s mother to fly to Kenya in late pregnancy, travel to a city with no international airport and only rudimentary medical facilities that is 400 miles away from the rural village where Obama’s grandmother lives, and then rush on an arduous journey halfway around the globe 2 days after the baby is born in order to be back in Hawaii to register the birth?
Exactly. That was where his *father* lived, not the place where his mother lived, either by herself or with Obama Sr. I don’t want to waste too much time in idle speculation over a totally irrelevant detail, but there are many reasons why the mother may have been living at a separate address, including problems related to marital discord that may have been deliberately withheld from her son. For example: it is very possible that Obama Sr. may have been physically abusive and threatening, and that Ann was trying to avoid him at the time she gave birth, possibly out of fear for her son’s safety as well as her own. That would also explain why she might have chosen to leave the state as soon as possible after the birth. There is evidence to support that hypothesis (also in the form of hearsay accounts from news articles). According to an article in The Daily Mail, Obama Sr.’s third wife, Ruth, left him ” after he repeatedly flew into whisky-fuelled rages, beating her brutally.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431908/A-drunk-bigot–US-Presidental-hopeful-HASNT-said-father-.html
So by that account Obama Sr. is a wife-beater; if he beat wife #3 it’s a pretty sure bet that he also beat wife #2.
By that theory, Kalanianaole Highway is either the address where Ann lived while being sheltered from her husband – either in the back cottage or as a guest of the university prof. who owned the main house — or else the mailing address she provided while she was actually being sheltered at a location she did not want to disclose.
Speculation? yes. But again, the point is irrelevant: the birth in Hawaii is documented by the records that the Director of the Health Department confirms to exist – where the mother was living at the time and why is irrelevant to the fact of birth.
WAYK is a Birther tried and true. He does not accept fackcheck.org’s story on the BC nor does he accept the hi-res photos that were taken. Yet he flatly refuses to aid in hiring a forensic specialist to confirm or deny Obama’s BC, though that is quite easy to do. That basicaly means forget convincing him of anything, he does not need proof nor will he accept proof. He will be doing this for all 8 years of Obama’s presidency.
It would show one address, but not all. It seems that the Dunhams were renters who moved with some frequency — and phone directory listings are not always updated with moves. In any case, I don’t think there is any evidence that the Dunhams lived on Kalanianaole Hwy — I posted above an alternate theory as to why Stanley Ann might have had her own, separate address at the time which fits in quite well with her alleged move to Washington state later in August.
The Honolulu Advertiser story claimed that the Dunhams lived on Kalanianaole Hwy. As you point out, there any number of plausible scenarios where the birth announcement is correct, and that in the end it doesn’t matter.
But the Advertiser story appears to be using the birth announcements as its source. All the birth announcement can show, however, is that 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy was an address that was apparently given by Ann Dunham when filling out forms at the time of Obama’s birth. It could have been her parents address, it could have been the address where she was living with Barack Sr., it could have been an address of a friend she was staying with — and the street number could easily be a mis-transcription of a handwritten number. For example, it could have been 6065 or 6805, and some typist mixed up the numbers.
In any case, as noted, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that there is a birth certificate on file, confirmed by the Dept. of Health, that functions as legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in August 1961.
I think this blog will declare August 4 “Natural Born Citizen” day.
I am not proposing any theory, I am letting the facts speak for themselves. If others detect inconsistencies between the facts and the claims of players they shout “conspiracy theory” at me. It aint a conspiracy theory if there’s no theory. If the inconsistencies between facts and claims arouse cognitive dissonance then those emotions should be directed at the players to demand clarification. No demand for clarification equals an abdication of the citizenry’s rights and duties in favor of unquestioned and finally unquestionable authority. Kind of like believing there was WMD in Iraq because several politically committed foreign intelligence sources passed that info onto us: we were strenuously “persuaded” from Powell on down that WMD was to be found. The UN inspectors said: not there. Millions of man-hours and billions of dollars later: anyone think those sources are still credible ? What’s my theory ? Don’t need one: the inconsistencies speak for themselves. If only WE had spoken for them instead. So much for what I claim…
Some food for thought about Factcheck’s photo’s: a) because they do not fulfill the stringent requirements placed upon digital photographs by courts, it doesn’t matter whether the photos are “real” or not, because their handling means they’re no more admissible in law (never mind reason) than if they WERE fakes; b) internal data within the photos themselves give times between 10.40 and 10.50 pm for the photos being taken, but simple observation alone will see that the “COLB” was snapped in natural daylight. Take a look: quality of light, direction of light, no flash illuminating everything in the visual field. If it is natural light then Factcheck are manipulating the photos or they are incompetent. What possible semblance of credibility in the court of reasonable opinion, never mind a court of law, can these images ever command ? They only persuade those who wish to be persuaded and who then seek to drown all doubt with their own re-doubled efforts to persuade (cognitive dissonance).
Hawaii Dept of Health statements: the mere fact that comments by Hawaii officials on any detail of Obama’s “COLB” would expose them to charges should be enough to indicate that distorted reports (yes, it does happen, remember the Advertiser story ?) about what those officials said on record cannot be true. My research has discovered only a studied neutrality. Please do not distort my position: I say the (false) address in the 1961 newspaper announcements comes from a birth certificate in Hawaii. This is consonant with “there clearly is a birth certificate available to be produced in any court”. It is the possible divergences from this point, and the unwillingness of Obama to support his loyalists with actions and documents that would narrow down the divergences to one conclusive reality, that is fouling the political atmosphere in this country. The issue so galvanizes opposition to Obama’s project as to have become more than a distraction: legislation is in process both federally and in several states that will require Presidential candidates to unambiguously qualify themselves for the ballot in 2012. Why would Obama make life this complicated for himself ? Obama could stop it all with transparency; if he does not… we will see what we will see, and we will know what we will know. Just like WMD.
Please, richCares, you wrote:
“take off the blinders.”
That’s not nice. You said WMD had actually been there and many other people beside ! Try this for a polite reply:
“Put up or shut up.”
Wayk I am not proposing any theory, I am letting the facts speak for themselves.
On the contrary, you fill in the gaps where we have no facts with speculation.
Some food for thought about Factcheck’s photo’s: a) because they do not fulfill the stringent requirements placed upon digital photographs by courts, it doesn’t matter whether the photos are “real” or not, because their handling means they’re no more admissible in law
I thought you were interested in the fact, now you are arguing that they would not pass muster in court. I agree, but that is irrelevant. People have argued, based on these photographs and scans that the COLB was falsified.
As to the time of the photographs taken, you presume that when people travel they adjust their date and time on their cameras, or that people even remember to correctly set such data? I find the date far more important on my camera than getting the time exactly right. As long as the time is consistent, my pictures show up in the correct order.
Why would Obama make life this complicated for himself ? Obama could stop it all with transparency; if he does not… we will see what we will see, and we will know what we will know. Just like WMD.
Why are you suggesting that Obama is making life more complicated for himself? A few people are wasting their time and resources on the eligibility issue, distracting them from opposing him on his policies and all at limited cost to himself. And I doubt that Obama showing anything will make these conspiracy theorists go away.
What’s my theory ? Don’t need one: the inconsistencies speak for themselves. If only WE had spoken for them instead. So much for what I claim…
No inconsistencies, only insufficient data. It’s the fact that you want to turn insufficient data into claims of inconsistencies while avoiding doing the research to explain, makes your contributions so meaningless.
So there appears to be a minor question about the address used in the birth announcement which of course deserves an explanation if we can provide such, or it will just remain that: an unknown aspects. We should not let what we do not know distract us from what we do known namely that President Obama was born in Honolulu, as evidenced by his COLB.
That’s ‘letting the facts speak for themselves’. Anything else is just pure speculation about the meaning of the address used. In fact, given the known timeline there appears to be quite a reasonable explanation.
Do you propose anything? Or are you now retreating to a claim that ‘you are just reporting or interested in the facts’? That however does not seem to have been your position until recently.
Why the change?
1 Dr Conspiracy was perfectly willing to accept at face value a Honolulu Advertiser report, which I subsequently demonstrated was, to put it politely, sparing with the truth, if not deliberately misleading. It must be that the good Dr is very trusting: that is, until presented with information or inference that runs counter to those “facts” he already “knows” to be true.
2 Dr Conspiracy asks us to believe in the total implausibility of a US Senator releasing a fake birth certificate. He is confusing me with someone else, because I have not ventured the opinion here that the imaged “COLB” is fake, only that it is no more admissible than a fake. Curiously, the (not so) implausibility of a US Senator and his family covering up a strange and inexplicable (to outsiders) family history leaves our Dr completely underwhelmed. Naturally there is the point of view that family matters are private matters, and normally I would agree. But Barack Obama has given his identity and family history an unprecedentedly conspicuous role in his political career and campaign speeches. Deceit is an unpleasant word to use, so let us merely observe the possibility of an established pattern of spots which other fellow life forms would have little hope of changing. This is not particular to Obama, but I would be here for hours if I were to give even a brief outline of the deceptions foisted on the American public by less than honest Senators: just to be non-partizan let’s mention (at random) Senators McCarthy, Johnson, Hart, and Craig. It’s touching to see that Dr Conspiracy maintains that time honored and charmingly innocent tradition of Americans looking up respectfully to their politicians and believing they always have our best interests closest to their hearts. So now I’m confused: is the estimable Dr a sceptic or a true believer ?
3 Please, Dr, stop spooning what the 6075 resident said down my throat for my own good: nothing I have written depends on what she said. Enough already !
4 The possibility of clerical error that our strict Dr Conspiracy has alluded to and now almost insists upon falls into the category of obscurum per obscuris: but, if it were true, what OTHER ERRORS did that (possibly underpaid and over-hassled) clerk perpetrate (in his haste to beat the rush hour traffic) ? Oh, I could have fun with that one…(Sorry Dr !) Sufficient to say, I don’t think this would take us in a direction that kindly Dr Conspiracy thinks we should go.
5 I am sorry Dr Conspiracy believes my extract from Dreams from My Father was less than accurate. If so I apologize: my only excuse is concision and that it may be something I picked up someplace only very recently. Re-admit the full passage: my analysis of that passage did answer your question and saved you the effort of having to work through by yourself all the misrepresention and innuendo in the Advertiser story. Unless you think I’m wrong. But, if I’m not, it lends a certain credibility to what I’ve written here. Of course, if we can’t trust anything written in Dreams from My father….that takes us back to the implausibility issue, don’t you think ?
WAYK,
You have an interesting ploy. You happily spread the accusations of others, but disavow responsibility for them. The result is that you accept no responsibility to prove much of anything.
If you ever come up with a coherent story explaining why (as you claim) the birth announcement is wrong, and how your story makes Barack Obama not a natural born US citizen, feel free. Until then, as I have said, you just have highlighted the general difficulty with historical detail from incomplete and non-contemporary sources.
Obama has a birth certificate, and corroborating official statements. You have hearsay.
WAYK:
Bullshit.
Your “theory” is that the 1961 Newspaper advertisement contains false information.
You are selecting some facts and ignoring others. You are distorting facts to suit your theory. You are labeling some facts as important or likely and labeling other ideas as improbable. There is nothing of the honest reporter in anything you’ve written.
Say what you like, but don’t insult me with this pretension of neutrality.
Worse. WAYK has hearsay on an irrelevant matter. Even if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the 6085 Kalanianaole address was false: the evidence would STILL show that Obama was born in Hawaii. It would not invalidate the birth certificate.
Dr Conspiracy was perfectly willing to accept at face value a Honolulu Advertiser report, which I subsequently demonstrated was, to put it politely, sparing with the truth, if not deliberately misleading. It must be that the good Dr is very trusting: that is, until presented with information or inference that runs counter to those “facts” he already “knows” to be true.
I believe you are misrepresenting Dr Conspiracy’s position. What the two birth announcements show is that the birth of Barack Obama was registered within one week or so from his actual birth, as the COLB suggests as well.
That these newspapers rely on standard reports of new births is also well established.
Thus the only question remains is the street address, and once again we have no reason to believe that the street address is somehow wrong.
Dr Conspiracy asks us to believe in the total implausibility of a US Senator releasing a fake birth certificate. He is confusing me with someone else, because I have not ventured the opinion here that the imaged “COLB” is fake, only that it is no more admissible than a fake.
Duh… But of course the certified copy is admissible in court and based on what we have seen so far, the COLB indicates that Barack Obama, was born in Honolulu.
. Deceit is an unpleasant word to use, so let us merely observe the possibility of an established pattern of spots which other fellow life forms would have little hope of changing
I understand why you would like to use the term deceit but again, these are not, as you call them facts but rather speculations, and often at odds with the facts.
It seems clear to me that Wayk is way off base with his claims, which he now pretends to be nothing more than facts although quite a few of his so called ‘facts’ are nothing more than speculations with a carefully woven story to suggest ulterior motives or deceit.
As I said, when the facts are against one’s position what else is there to do but to try to impugn the honesty or reputation of those who present the facts.
Seems what Wayk, when pressed disavows any responsibility for claims he repeats. As Dr Conspiracy points out the following facts:
Barack Obama presented his COLB which indicates that he was born in Honolulu.
Official statements by Hawaii government personel support Obama’s claims
Birth announcements made about a week after his birth show that Barack Obama was born.
And so the facts seem to overwhelmingly point to something Wayk seems to have a problem accepting.
It’s the lack of a coherent argument which undermines Wayk’s attempts and when compared directly with the other side of the story, it seems self evident whose story is better supported by evidence and facts.
“Put up or shut up.”
Now that’s somewhat ironic…
“Deceit is an unpleasant word to use”
So why did you use it?
By the way, when I say “hearsay”, I am not referring to the next door neighbor; I am referring to the statements of Madelyn Dunham made to the biographer.
While we have examined many alternatives, such as typographical errors, and the faulty memories of the elderly, I should take a moment to state what I think is most likely the truth:
1) Stanley Ann Obama was the informant for the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address. Reason: mothers are usually the informant on a birth.
2) She really did reside at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway at the time her son was born. Reason: birth announcements are usually correct, since they derive from primary sources.
There is nothing presented in the main article or the comments that really challenges these two most likely events. All that is presented is the perfectly understandable lack of corroboration within a incomplete compilation of other witnesses. There is similar confusion about the dates Stanley Ann attended the University of Washington, with varying conflicting chronologies.
1) Stanley Ann Obama was the informant for the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address. Reason: mothers are usually the informant on a birth.
I have read some reports which suggest that Obama Sr was not even there for the birth. I am trying to get together a timeline here.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961 at 7:52 PM in Honolulu, Hawaii. Stanley Ann Dunham was listed as the maiden name of the mother and Barack Obama was listed as the name of the father in the document put forward that appears to be a State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth. The document was filed on August 8, 1961. There is no indication that Barack Obama Senior was present at the birth of his third child. Stanley Ann’s high school classmate Susan Blake had the impression that he was not there, and may not even have been on the island of Hawaii at the time, but no other contemporary has any recollections on this issue one way or the other
and
—
She left Honolulu just as soon she had clearance from her doctor to travel with her new baby. He was just 3 weeks old. She had sent a postcard that she would be in town, and was staying with a friend of her mother’s. She drove out to my house in her mother?s friend’s car, and we spent the entire day together. She was very excited about her new life, and her husband. She was nuts about him, crazy in love. I was under the impression that he had left Honolulu before Barack’s birth, that he had gone to Harvard already for his studies, and that Ann was on her way to join him there. She planned on raising her son, getting a job, and attending school, she told me. Her husband would head back to Kenya after graduating from Harvard to join the newly formed government, and she would take her place beside him. It was all very exciting, a dramatic change in her life in the one year since she had graduated from high school.” —
Had Obama already been accepted at Harvard by then?
One additional item: According to the Seattle Times newspaper, Stanley Ann Obama returned to Washington State in 1962 and enrolled at UW for the Spring quarter.
This is one of many contradictory accounts of when she went to Washington State.
After reading that mishmash of opinion and bad information they call an affidiavit, I’m sort of stunned that they actually spent money on such an obvious incompetent.
It seems to me that the accounts from that period are hopelessly muddled. One says Obama Sr. graduated from the University of Hawaii n June 1962 which would mean he was not studying at Harvard. If you’re interested, I suggest scanning through the discussion debate on the Wikipedia Talk Page for Stanley Ann Dunham to see a list of all the known sources and how they fail to agree; this may be of interest for your timeline.
Yes, doc, you are right. The whole issue is hopelessly muddled.
All he has to do is release the damn thing!
The thousands of hours you have put into this issue can all be justified (Or not) with a stroke of your messiah’s pen.
But where would that put you and your ilk? Out of work just like Jesse and Al?
Face it…He’s hiding something and we ALL know it. Only you refuse to admit it.
1 I have posted elsewhere that because Obama’s parents were never lawfully married he was illegitimate and therefore never a British citizen at birth: the counter-argument provided by Obama haters is that even at his own website Obama has admitted he was a British citizen at birth. I think the flaw here is quite apparent, but zealots obviously lack the ability to be objective. I have also posted elsewhere that whatever may be discovered about the Indonesian dimension to Obama’s life, at no time would US authorities have considered Ann Dunham and Obama Jr to have expatriated American citizenship if (as is virtually certain was the case) one simple immigration procedure (entry without visa) was followed. These legal realities (which obviously didn’t change the minds of fanatical “birthers”, as you dub them) were not assumed by me to be a priori to any discussion but were arrived at by a process of diligent research, in keeping with the seriousness of the issue.
2 With regard to any future submission of Obama’s paper COLB, I would agree it would be sufficient by itself IF and ONLY IF the COLB legally duplicated information to be found in his original birth record from 1961, but it most patently does not. A Hawaii COLB only duplicates the data held in the originating electronic database, and that database does not duplicate the original 1961 record, it redacts it: error and fraud can exist in the original record and still be waved through by the COLB. We know of at least one suspected falsity or error in the original record, therefore a reasonable person (or an attorney via the Federal Rules of Evidence) would be acting reasonably, and have every right, to call for an examination of the original and complete record, of which the COLB is only a edited part. This is reinforced by an understanding that in 1961 births in Hawaii could be recorded in more than one way (eg affidavit), that is, in ways which provided opportunities for error or fraud. To ASSUME (the way “birthers” assume Obama must be British or Indonesian or both) that illegality or error is unthinkable in this case would be to advise a defense for Larry Craig on the basis that he reached under the partition into the next stall because he thought he recognized an old college buddy down there and was hand-signing a fraternity greeting: covers the bases, but not very plausible. It can’t be said my position is implausible on two grounds: a) the COLB database IS a redaction and therefore not a duplicate, and b) a falsity or error IS reasonably suspected to be in Obama’s original 1961 birth record, and investigation doesn’t depend on prior absolute certainty.
3 It does not logically follow that a concern for the truth, such as trying to assess before the 2003 invasion whether WMD really did exist in Iraq, automatically damns sincere researchers as partizans, unless those damning have themselves a cause to defend. We’ve all seen that…. And by the way, it’s not to be taken for granted that there will be a second term for Obama: legislation in process at state and federal level will require of candidates full disclosure someplace for 2012. All Obama needed to do (too late now) to prevent that was… full disclosure. Why put himself between a rock and a hard place ?
Where do you think biographer Mendell got his information ? Just made it up ? Or did Mendell ask those whom he thought would know ? Who WOULD know ? Not Obama Sr’s friends: none are on record as ever seeing Ann Dunham at 11th Ave, not even staunch Obama Jr ally Hawaii Representative Abercrombie, Obama Sr’s best buddy. At which point who would you have asked ? Mendell had unique access for a 2008 campaign lead-in biography: do you think Obama, family, and lawyers and Mendell, publisher, and lawyers didn’t check out the text. The context of the quote is Mendell being shown around by Maya: any mistake or ambiguity would have been rooted out by family and lawyers. Whoever gave the information about 11th Ave must have been a very authoritative source, if their information found no corroboration in Obama Sr’s friends. Over to you: before 2007, where could Mendell have learned definitively (as far he could or need establish) to be able to state that Obama Sr moved his family into 625 11th Ave ? Not “Dreams from My Father”, anyhow.
As for “It seems that the Dunhams were renters who moved with some frequency”, that is not true in Hawaii: 1st (house) 61-64, 2nd (house) 64-67, 3rd (apartment) 67-2008.
Your opinion, not the law. Under the law, the state of Hawaii could elect to destroy the original documents and maintain only electronic records – and many states have done so — and it the OFFICIAL record, not the underlying document, that governs. Hawaii law specifies that the COLB is prima facie evidence — you can’t go behind and around it.
No, we don’t. We have a hearsay rumor that proves nothing: an elderly woman, purportedly a neighbor, does not remember the Obama family. That is meaningless (I don’t remember who was living next door to me in 1961 either).
And in any case, as I have pointed out numerous times, it is a purported lack of evidence on a collateral matter. It doesn’t matter if the parent’s address is erroneous — all that matters is time and place of birth of the individual.
Actually, the various legislation bandied about would only require production of the COLB. We can surmise from the date of issuance of the COLB — July 2007 — that Obama obtained it in the expectation that he might need to prove his birth at some point in his candidacy — why else would he request one at that point?
All you will get with these laws is possibly extra revenue for the Hawaii Dept. of Health — if 10 states want to have paper birth certificates on file in 2012, then Obama will have to send away to Hawaii for 10 more COLBs. Since the Hawaii DOS has confirmed that they have the original records on file, we know that this will be easy enough for Obama to get.
On the basis of one Honolulu Advertiser story Dr Conspiracy told me: “Your facts are confused.”
I then showed that, contrary to the distortions of the Advertiser:
a) that 2277 Kamehemama was the Dunham’s first house in Hawaii, from 1960 until 1964;
b) that the Dunhams never moved into Alexander in 1963, but rented it for their daughter;
c) that Ann Dunham is never recorded or witnessed as residing at 625 11th Ave, other than in Mendell’s bigraphy;
d) that Dunham and Obama separated in August 1961 not in 1962;
e) that (according to witnesses and UW and phone company records) Ann Dunham lived in Washington state from August 1961 until Spring 1963.
No rebutting evidence, retraction, or apology forthcoming.
Dr Conspiracy writes “denial of overwhelming evidence is evidence of something”. I agree.
1 Don’t think Hawaii will get away with destroying records now, though. Wonder why not ? It’s not like they’ll ever be used again… Hey, wait, native Hawai’ians and land issues ! Angry Hawai’ians march !
2 I must have a better memory than you: Miss LI, Mr & Mrs M, Mr and McA, Mr and Mrs W, Mr and Mrs H etc etc etc etc etc. Easy.
3 I never mentioned any lady. You talking ’bout a lady ?
4 You seem to have an unshakeable faith that your opinion trumps mine every time: maybe Dr Conspiracy can help with that.
“the various legislation bandied about would only require production of the COLB…”
1 Guess you’re smarter than they are… they didn’t figure that out. Maybe not: they know now ! You gotta control that. By the way, there’s other law stuff going down I didn’t mention… That’ll be real fun.
2 Aint seen no Obama COLB: only them photies. There is no Obama COLB: why do you keep talking as if one exists ? I got a photie that says I’m the King of Siam: I can clone your name onto it if you want to be King. Put it online: it’s just as good. As King the gravity of your opinion is so much more impressive than mine.
Wayk: 1 Don’t think Hawaii will get away with destroying records now, though. Wonder why not ? It’s not like they’ll ever be used again… Hey, wait, native Hawai’ians and land issues ! Angry Hawai’ians march !
You are ignoring the simple fact of the argument that electronic records and their printouts are sufficient and carry the same legal value as the ‘original’.
HRS 338.19
Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]
In other words, they are competent evidence with the same effect as the original as well as prima facie legal evidence in court.
The claim that the Birth certificate contains at least one error, based on some hearsay, will unlikely be relevant and admissible in court. After all, the absence of knowledge or memory should not be confused with evidence of absence.
WayK: a) the COLB database IS a redaction and therefore not a duplicate, and b) a falsity or error IS reasonably suspected to be in Obama’s original 1961 birth record, and investigation doesn’t depend on prior absolute certainty.
The COLB is “competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.” HRS 338.19 so a) is wrong in the sense that it has any impact on the relevance of the COLB. As to b) again 338.19 comes into play, the address is of no relevance to the issue, and the claim that absence of recollection by a single witness somehow undermines the veracity of the Birth Certificate will unlikely hold up.
Wayk: 1 Guess you’re smarter than they are… they didn’t figure that out. Maybe not: they know now ! You gotta control that. By the way, there’s other law stuff going down I didn’t mention… That’ll be real fun.
Nope, they forgot an important legal fact namely that the States (and the Feds) have to accept other States’ documents as valid. Which is why sometimes a COLB is sufficient for a passport, and sometimes it isn’t. Since in HI, the COLB has the same legal status as the original, it has to be accepted.
I am drawing a blank here as to the name right now…
In other words, States cannot require long forms from other States if the short form is considered legally equivalent.
Too bad…
“Full Faith and Credit”
Wikipedia: Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states.
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.
WayK: Where do you think biographer Mendell got his information ? Just made it up ?
No, I am asking you were he got this information you claim he presented. I have found no reference. Perhaps I should have said: Where did you get the information?
In fact, I do not believe that he ever said that since the only reference I found indicates that the Obamas moved into house on University, not 11th, which was as I understand a dormitory.
Wayk: do you think Obama, family, and lawyers and Mendell, publisher, and lawyers didn’t check out the text.
It’s your argument, you support it. Who checked what, when and where and with what level of detail?
You need to separate fact from your beliefs before jumping to conclusions
And by the way, it’s not to be taken for granted that there will be a second term for Obama: legislation in process at state and federal level will require of candidates full disclosure someplace for 2012. All Obama needed to do (too late now) to prevent that was… full disclosure. Why put himself between a rock and a hard place ?
Why do you think Obama would not qualify since he did indeed provide for full disclosure, namely the COLB which is in fact “competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original”, and thus via the “Full Faith and Credit” clause, sufficient.
You seem to presume that somehow Obama is not eligible… Strange since you also seem to argue strongly against this when you appear to oppose the silliness about Obama being a British or Indonesian Citizen.
Since the document which has the same legal force and effect as the original shows Obama to be born in Honolulu, under what scenario would you believe him to fail to qualify?
What “would have” – what “do you think”… all that is idle speculation. It isn’t evidence. It is fantasy, based on some assertion that we should believe some writer who was not holding himself to legal standards. We can assume he interviewed some people, made some of his own assumptions, and wrote them down. He couldn’t testify in court as to what he found, because it would be hearsay– you’d have to go back to whoever he interviewed.
All about a point that is irrelevant to Obama’s life history, irrelevant to the circumstances of his birth, and irrelevant to his citizenship status.
That’s what you have: idle speculation based on factually irrelevant details. The best you have at this point is the fact that you don’t know.
If some state crafted a statute that ballot access in some way could only be satisfied by the long form, then by jingo, I bet you a nickel, President Obama would send ’em a long form. And then SOMEBODY will look really stupid.
I can’t think of any likely scenario where Obama would try to overturn such a law in court, even if it were obviously unconstitutional. If he challenged a state law in court, that would move the discussion from the tin foil hats to the main stream.
It is fully possible that the only records remaining from 1961 are on microfilm. My guess is not, but it could be.
You didn’t “show” anything of the sort. You cited third hand accounts that merely indicate that there is some uncertainty about various facts. You could generate the same controversy about any person’s life history – I mean, if you ask me about where my family members have lived over the past decade, when they moved, etc. I bet I’d get a lot of details wrong. Memories are like that – they aren’t perfect, and humans have a tendency to fill in gaps or mistaken impressions with confabulated information.
That is WHY all states now have laws providing procedures for the recording of vital statistics, like births, marriages and deaths — because the official, contemporaneous recording is deemed to be much more reliable than individual recollections.
In any case, it doesn’t matter how many people don’t remember a fact — failure of recollection is never evidence that something didn’t happen. Unless and until you can come up with a witness or documentation that shows where Ann Dunham was officially living as of August, 1961 — the record stands. You really need to find some sort of document like a lease agreement or a post office address change record,, and I doubt seriously that such records would have been preserved 48 years down the line.
I think that most genealogy researchers are well aware that these things are hard to pinpoint and that it is very common to be given conflicting information along the line.
“You seem to have an unshakeable faith that your opinion trumps mine every time: maybe Dr Conspiracy can help with that.”
(Luke 12:14 NRSV) But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?”
WAYK, would you walk through the primary sources/evidence for:
“that (according to witnesses and UW and phone company records) Ann Dunham lived in Washington state from August 1961 until Spring 1963.”
WAYK: That Ann Dunham is never recorded or witnessed as residing at 625 11th Ave, other than in Mendell’s bigraphy;
Mendell does not even make that statement. In fact, I doubt that 11th Ave was referenced when referring to the location were Obama lived his early youth as this location is NOT close to Manoa University.
However, the house where Obama lived around 63 was located close to the University, opposite a small park…
WAYK said:
“A Hawaii COLB only duplicates the data held in the originating electronic database, and that database does not duplicate the original 1961 record, it redacts it: error and fraud can exist in the original record and still be waved through by the COLB.”
I’m not quite sure what this means exactly. Particularly in the vital records business, redact can mean “to hide” for example in the case of an adoption, the name of the birth mother might be redacted (blacked out) on a certified copy. The correct word here is “abstracted” in the sense of “selected from”. More precise language would be “and that database does not duplicate the [entire] original 1961 record, it
redactsselects information from it”. I don’t know what “waved through by the COLB” means. The presumption of Hawaiian Law is that the information on the COLB accurately reflects what is on the original birth registration. (Amendments are not discussed because the COLB does not bear the required marks for an amended record.)WAYK: I then showed that, contrary to the distortions of the Advertiser:
a) that 2277 Kamehemama was the Dunham’s first house in Hawaii, from 1960 until 1964;
—-
Again you seem to be mistaken.
The Dunhams lived in 1427 Alexander Street, while 2277 Kamehameha Ave (not Kamehemama) was were Ann Dunham lived. In fact this is the house which is close to the University, next to a park and on a hilly road.
Putting what we know now, the following picture emerges
By Sept 25, 1961, records show his mother was attending classes at the University of Washington. President Obama lived with his mother in Seattle at 516 13th Ave E until at least the summer of 1962. She returned to Honolulu for Fall 1962. She is listed as living at 2277 Kamehameha Avenue with her son. By 1964, Obama, his mother and his grandparents were living an idyllic small house at 2234 University Avenue where Obama attended nearby kindergarten at Noelani Elementary School. After that Obama moved to Jakarta and returned to Punahou Circle Apartments.
Details matter
a ” ‘Parents’ address’ on a birth certificate is not optional” – WAYK What law requires that? — Expelliarmus
b The purpose a birth certificate is to document the time and place of birth — Expelliarmus
c Kalanianaole Highway is either the address where Ann lived while being sheltered from her husband – either in the back cottage or as a guest of the university prof. who owned the main house — or else the mailing address she provided while she was actually being sheltered… — Expelliarmus
d …it is very possible that Obama Sr. may have been physically abusive and threatening, and that Ann was trying to avoid him… — Expelliarmus
e You cited third hand accounts — Expelliarmus
1 Last first:
* Nice video interview with Susan Blake about Ann Dunham in Washington 1961 http://tinyurl.com/TribVid-SusanBlake
* “Anna Obama, Apartment 2, Villa Ria Apartments at 516 13th Avenue E, Capitol Hill” Nice photo of listing in Seattle Reverse Directory, 1961-1962 http://tinyurl.com/AO-1961-WA-Listed
* “Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for: Autumn 1961 Winter 1962 Spring 1962
The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Madolyne Lawson Office of Public Records 206-543-9180”
More FIRST HAND accounts available on request.
2 A birth certificate does (and IS legally required to) do more than merely record time and place of birth, as has been denied: the birth record IDENTIFIES. It is a fact that all fields on a birth record ARE legally mandated, with their purpose being to IDENTIFY. These examples will stand as representative of standard practice (following the Model State Vital Statistics Act):
* Nebraska Vital Records Rules: 9-004 “Completion Of Certificate: All items must be completed on the certificate of live birth unless there is disclosure or a satisfactory accounting for any omission.”
* Florida Vital Records Registration Handbook: “COMPLETE INFORMATION REQUIRED Florida statutes require physicians, midwives, funeral directors, informants, and all other persons having knowledge of the facts to supply such information as they may possess regarding any birth…occurring within the state….
Items 1 – 22 are contained in what is termed the “legal” portion of the birth certificate. These items are necessary for the identification of the individual and for a description of where and when the birth occurred….
18a-g. MOTHER’S RESIDENCE
Mother’s residence is the place where she has set up housekeeping. This is not necessarily the same as her “home state”, “voting residence”, “mailing address”, or “legal residence”. Never enter a temporary residence such as one used during a visit, business trip, or a vacation. Residence for a short time at the home of a relative, friend, or home for unwed mothers for the purpose of awaiting the birth of a child is considered to be temporary and should not be entered here…
22. INFORMANT STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE: THE CERTIFICATION VALIDATES THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION RECORDED ON THE CERTIFICATE AND IS SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY STATE LAW.” (all caps original)
* Texas Health And Safety Code, Vital Records: “Sec. 195.003 False Records (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly makes a false statement or directs another person to make a false statement in: (1) a certificate, record…(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly supplies false information, or intentionally or knowingly creates a false record..”
* Minnesota Vital Statistics Act 144.227 Birth registration. “A person who intentionally makes a false statement in a registration…or who intentionally supplies false information…is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”
* Beside a signature box [18a] on a 1961 Hawaii birth certificate is the statement that the parent or other informant assents “I certify that the above stated information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge”.
It would appear that nobody has evidence (other than the newspaper announcement), and certainly none from Obama or family, that connects any member of the Dunham or Obama families with 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address given by the birth informant. To concede that neither as a shelter, refuge, mailing address, home of a relative or friend, or home for unwed mothers would 6085 Kalanianaole Highway qualify as “Usual Residence of Mother” seems necessarily to concede that the identifying address was false or in error – and there may be MORE such falsities or errors. Now what ? Do nothing, assume everything ? With that level of trust (a President must understand he governs a nation comprised of more than just supine devotees) theres’s no need to waste many tax dollars on an expensive judicial system, when the people (everyone, not just followers) are not going to be allowed to SEE justice being done anyhow… Moral obligation: what’s that ?
3 Speaking of trust: The online images of COLBs invalidate themselves and are no more deserving of serious consideration than fakes: so why would Obama expose his loyalists to ridicule, and his own Presidency and project to a single term, when he could have filled one box in the same $12 birth certificate application, thus receiving a long form to prevent it (and, according to verified FEC data via Obama for America, save over $1million from CAMPAIGN funds defending eligibility suits) ? Very strange.
Our perspicacious Dr Conspiracy writes “denial of overwhelming evidence is evidence of something” but has overlooked that similarly “the hiding of evidence is evidence of something to hide”: Obama’s implausible (but true) hiding…correction: “ignorance”…of the fact (he’s a lawyer and professor, right ?) that his parents separated within three weeks of his birth, and both he and his mother lived in Washington until 1963, has been conspicuous by its absence in any book, article, or interview TO DATE involving Obama and family. Very strange.
Or that, because Obama Sr was lawfully married in Kenya (how many times has Obama visited ?), claims on (constitutional lawyer) Obama Jr’s own website that he was a British citizen at birth are (to be gracious) in error or false. Very strange.
Or that, because Obama never examined the (speculated babyfoot – colorful detail omitted from narrative) birth Certificate he discovered as a teen, this “identity obsessional” never became aware of his parents’–mother’s address in any of the (other) Certificates he needed to provide to authorities in an active career: suggesting that Obama the autobiographer, social worker, foreign traveler, lawyer, college professor, politician, and car driver never had the intellectual curiosity to read his own pre-2001 pre-COLB long form birth certificate. Very strange.
Or that Ann Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of Jr’s birth and, contrary to speculative claims that she may have been abused by Sr, spoke in most loving terms of the nature of her relationship with the man she believed (or allowed others to believe) was her “husband”, outlining plans in those conversations for a future life together in Kenya, although she never saw him again for ten years. Very strange.
Or that Ann Dunham went through a sham “divorce” with Obama Sr in 1964, despite the fact that “divorce” is meaningless for a bigamous (ie null and void) “marriage”, prompting the question: what contemporaneous legal events (eg adoption), so far hidden…correction: “not made public”… by Obama, family, and friends, made this procedure advisable and what impact did it have on official records whereby Barack Obama II may not be NAMED AND IDENTIFIED by those records? Very strange.
This does not complete the list of strangeness… Too much stress ! Let’s all just breathe deeply and affirm together: “A President never lies – we WERE attacked in Tonkin – he did NOT wipe that tape – there was NO intention of using force to rescue the Tehran hostages – we read his lips and there were NO new taxes – he did NOT have sex with that woman – WMD WILL be found in Iraq – we CAN trust our beloved Presidents to tell us the truth, then and always. Today is no different. We trust and we believe.”
And if Obama obtained and released a “long form” birth certificate tomorrow … what would you expect to see?
WAYK has a lot to say but little of real content
WAYK: It would appear that nobody has evidence (other than the newspaper announcement), and certainly none from Obama or family, that connects any member of the Dunham or Obama families with 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address given by the birth informant.
In other words, there is no evidence that this was not the location where Stanley Ann Dunham resided and thus the information in the birth announcement is the only evidence. Furthermore since the address is of no relevance to where Obama was born, the issue of who lived where and when is at best a curiosity.
Sad to see how WAYK has nothing more to offer than ‘very strange’ to describe his imaginary scenarios of what may have happened.
Facts seem less of a concern than imagination.
WAYK: Speaking of trust: The online images of COLBs invalidate themselves and are no more deserving of serious consideration than fakes:
On the contrary, there are of quite serious consideration for those interested in the truth. Of course as legal evidence the pictures are insufficient, however the COLB should suffice.
Seems that WAYK, lacking any relevant information is attempting to drown his ignorance with extensive irrelevant quotes.
I hope he will find time to address the many inconsistencies discovered in his own claims and arguments.
So what really remains is that according the the COLB, president Obama was born in Honolulu, just as the birth announcements suggest. Furthermore, while there is noone at this moment who remembers the short period of time Stanley Ann may have resided at the address stated in the birth certificate, there is no reason to doubt the facts as reported in the birth announcement and at best this remains a minor mystery. Remember that Obama Sr and his wife did not live together, and was perhaps not even present during the birth of Obama. When Stanley Ann visited Mercer Island, 3 weeks after the birth of Obama, she left this impression. Since she moved to Seattle soon thereafter, it seems doubtful that the Obamas ever lived together under the same roof for any significant period of time. WAYK may have confused Obama Sr’s 11th Ave location as the place where the family moved in but the location is at odds with the description given in Mendell. Far more likely is that the description describes the location where Stanley Ann moved to after sh returned to Honolulu in 1962, the same year her husband moved to Cambridge. They may have overlapped in time and place for a few months at best.
WAYK: Aint seen no Obama COLB: only them photies. There is no Obama COLB: why do you keep talking as if one exists ?
There are scans, there are pictures, there is the statement by the Hawaiian Department of Health. All this needs to be ignored to take WAYK’s ‘argument’ seriously.
Remarkable the extent to which WAYK is willing to ignore what we do know. Very strange.
WAYK…. I’m sorry, when I asked what LAW required governed entry of information on long form birth certificates, I meant what HAWAII law.
I am glad to know that you are able to look up laws for Texas, Minnesota, Florida and Nebraska. But they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Hawaiian law.
WAYK cites some text, without sourcing it:
“The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Madolyne Lawson Office of Public Records 206-543-9180”
While the email might be true, I have never seen it from an authoritative trustworthy source. It could be one fake among many. I took a cursory look at the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State, and they did not seem applicable to the material disclosed (or claimed) in this email.
“WAYK: Aint seen no Obama COLB: only them photies. There is no Obama COLB: why do you keep talking as if one exists ?”
it is quite easy to go to Obama’s Chicago office and see the COLB. But you won’t do that will you, none of the birthers were willing to go with a forensic specialits to check. It would destroy a talking point.
Again, all these issues are put to rest if he would just SHOW THE DAMN THING!
There is not only the birth announcement, the fact of and the form and substance of which evidences that the newspaper got the info from Vital Statistics, but there are also the grade school records from Indonesia which record many years ago that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Do they have reasonable grounds to believe he was not born in the USA. Answer: No
Question: So, why are they accusing him?
“…the only reference I found indicates that the Obamas moved into house on University, not 11th, which was as I understand a dormitory.” NBC
Please read again:
Page 28 “Obama’s father had been living in a nondescript concrete dormitory building just inside the campus…” and THEN “After the marriage and his son’s birth, Obama’s father moved his new family into a small, one-story white house …” A concrete dormitory building is by definition not a house; the house was Obama Sr’s 11th Ave house, very demonstrably not on campus [Google Maps ?], and the only house Sr’s friends ever knew him to live at. The address at University only comes into the picture two years AFTER Sr left Hawaii.
Why did Mendell not explicitly give that house’s address ? Another question: why did Mendell slide imperceptibly from the Obama family moving into the [11th Ave] house and:
“When Obama was two years old, his father won a scholarship to study at Harvard but did not have the money to take his family with him. He accepted the scholarship and never returned to the family…”
April 18, 2009: “Ortega…recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. president could not be held to account for that.
‘I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,’ Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.” AP
Bay of Pigs = April 1961. Obama three months old ? Very strange.
As I have shown 11th avenue does not meet the descriptions of “close to the university”. I see this as a likely confusion with 2277 Kamehameha Avenue which is, like the address at University, close to the University and opposite a small park. In other words, After they got married, Obama Sr continued to live in 11th Ave, while Dunham moved to Seattle and when she returned, she moved into 2277 Kamehameha.
You are thus wrong, Obama never moved his family into 11th Ave, at best he may have helped Dunham get the 2277 house rented, but he left likely before or shortly after she returned.
So Obama got the date wrong. What’s so strange about this? Geez, do you also believe he was born on Krypton?
Logic without reason is meaningless
Maya is Obama’s younger sister — she would have only family lore to report, not first-hand knowledge. Mendell’s reports are hearsay, based on what people told him — and there are many reasons why details might have been lost or confused over the years, including that people who were interviewed (a) didn’t know, (b) didn’t remember, or (c) knew facts they chose not to disclose.
I think its clear that Obama’s parents did not have a picture-perfect marriage and things were not as rosy as Obama’s mother chose to portray them to her son. Obama’s own autobiography is largely an account of his discovery of some unpleasant truths about his father that had been concealed from him in childhood.
From what we do know of the family history, it is likely that Ann had a conflicted relationship with her father. If a 19 year old with a new baby moves to a distant state to live on her own, its a strong indication of troubles at home. By January of 1962, if not earlier, Ann had chosen to live apart from both her husband and from her parents. Its a pretty safe bet that her parents were not pleased with her showing up pregnant by a black man at age 18 – so we certainly know what might cause a family rift.
Nor would it be surprising that parents or grandparents would later conceal some of the details from their offspring — as well as to outsiders who come along asking questions for a biography. So maybe the truth is that Obama Sr. was a cad, that the Obama “marriage” was mostly a sham entered into simply for appearances and to legitimize the baby, and that family tensions between the Dunhams and their daughter resulted in Madeline & Stanley either kicking her out, or Ann deciding to move out on her own. Later on, Ann reconciled with her parents (obviously, since they took on a large part of the responsibility of raising Barack) — and for purposes of family harmony, they would have been unlikely to discuss any unpleasant stuff from the early 60’s with the children.
Perhaps Obama got the date wrong; more likely he used “three months old” as a non-specific colloquialism; or perhaps he was demonstrating a phenomenal knowledge of historical events when he WAS three months old by referring to Operation Mongoose:
1 “Who checked what, when and where and with what level of detail?” NBC
NBC is groping in the murk of a profound misundertanding of books and publishing, and that augurs ill for bringing him any further along.
2 “You need to separate fact from your beliefs before jumping to conclusions…Details matter.” NBC
If details matter, why did the details of Ann Dunham living and studying in Seattle from August 1961 emerge neither from Obama nor his biographers but were uncovered by researchers initially derided as conspiracists by shouters like NBC ? Even now, for example, it would seem that Expelliarmus at this site has great difficulty accepting that Ann Dunham moved to Seattle in August 1961, or, at least, has dismissed the information as relying on “third hand reports”.
3 NBC’s sequence of thought implies that 1427 Alexander was the Dunham’s first HOUSE in Hawaii, when in fact 1427 Alexander was a small, cheap APARTMENT. The only HOUSE (repeat HOUSE) that Obama Jr could have identified as his grandparents’ first HOUSE in Hawaii (in Dreams From My Father) is the only address associated with them at that time: 2277 Kamehameha Avenue. If, conversely, NBC denies the implication of his sequence of thought, that the Dunhams lived at 1427 Alexander in 1960, where does NBC say they were they living at that time ? Right now I’m aware of at least one person who lived as a young man in the neighborhood in 1960-1 and publicly confirms that all three Dunhams lived at 2277 Kamehameha Avenue in 1960-1.
4 It would appear that the challenges of English (Mendell Page 28) are leading NBC to a confuse a “nondescript concrete dormitory” close to UH with a small house (625 11th Ave) off campus as Obama Sr’s first quarters in Hawaii. In 1959 Obama Sr initially moved into the UH YMCA at Atherton (eg Honolulu Advertiser: 1959 photo Obama Sr studying in YMCA room, captioned: “lived at the Atherton YMCA while he was a student at UH”) and then in 1960 moved out to 625 11th Ave. Otherwise, why would a college friend of Sr write “He was a private man with academic achievement his foremost goal. He lived somewhat like a hermit in a small room up in the valleys of Manoa. I visited him on my Lambretta [motorcycle]…” if he could have visited Obama Sr right there by UH ?
5 NBC shouts out a lot of bizarre and contradictory assertions:
* “the Obamas moved into house on University, not 11th, which was as I understand a dormitory.” (The Atherton YMCA !? That DORMITORY ? The YMCA that Obama Sr’s friends said he quit in 1960, probably because no alcohol was permitted ?)
* “WAYK may have confused Obama Sr’s 11th Ave location as the place where the family moved in” (NBC powers of comprehension are failing: in earlier posts I explicitly wrote that THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR MENDELL’S CLAIM: it’s at that juncture NBC first got riled !)
* “You are thus wrong, Obama never moved his family into 11th Ave” (See previous)
* “11th avenue…a likely confusion with 2277 Kamehameha Avenue… After they got married, Obama Sr continued to live in 11th Ave…when [Ann Dunham] returned, she moved into 2277 Kamehameha.” (How could 2277 be confused with 11th, when according to NBC 2277 only figures from 1963, and how can NBC say Sr continued to live at 11th when NBC simultaneously has Sr moving into a house on University with his family ?)
* “Mendell does not even make that statement [that Obama Jr lived at 625 11th with his parents]” (Obama Sr had only two addresses in Hawaii, according to records and witnesses. Forget Kalanianaole, that’s “Mother’s Residence” on the Cert: where else then could Sr have lived, and been suggested by Mendell to have been living with his family, other than 11th Ave? A suggestion necessarily endorsed by the Obama family and lawyers: no mention of Kalanianaole.)
*”[Obama Sr] may have helped Dunham get the 2277 house rented, but he left likely before or shortly after she returned.” (Obama Sr left Hawaii in June 1962, but according to NBC Ann Dunham only lived at 2277 from 1963: how could Sr have helped rent 2277 or overlapped Ann’s return ? Taking NBC’s scenario seriously: where could Ann Dunham have lived in Hawaii before 2277, when she had no job or money in Seattle and, according to records that NBC cites, the Dunham’s only began living in Alexander in 1963 ? Barbara Cannon Rusk visited with Ann in Seattle after June 1962. Choice: other unknown addresses for Ann and her parents, or they lived at…? 2277 Kamehameha, as identified by Obama Jr in Dreams From My Father as his grandparents’ first HOUSE in Hawaii.
6 Given that Obama Sr moved out of the Atherton YMCA in 1960 and into 625 11th Ave: why did Ann Dunham not move in with her “husband” upon “marriage”, why did Sr retain (as he did) 625 11th Ave if he and his “wife” had moved out to Kalanianaole Highway (especially when Sr had said in interviews and letters he had no income, lived on charity, was struggling to make ends meet), and why would the Dunhams allow their very young, impressionable, and pregnant daughter live so far away from hospital (especially when neither Ann nor Sr appear to have owned an automobile and Sr was studying every day in UH) ?
7 Why would the Dunhams put themselves to all the expense and inconvenience of moving out of their family-sized house in Kamehameha and into a small downscale apartment in Alexander, allowing their 20 yr old daughter to take over their home, when she was returning to Honolulu from a lowrent apartment THEY had rented for her in Seattle (especially when, in the real timeline, by registering at UH with a CONTINUING residence at Kamehameha, she qualified for instate tuition) ?
If NBC just adds these details to what he knows then a better composed and more coherent picture should form, gently asking to be understood. No need to force the experience: quietly relax and let the truth make itself very slowly apparent.
“As long as the time is consistent…” NBC
Courts will not admit photos handled the way Factcheck handled theirs, why should I ? Manipulated or incompetent = worthless.
“People argue…that the COLB was falsified.” NBC
Waste of time discussing that with you: you’ve already decided (below) that “Obama presented his COLB”, which he never has.
“…making life more complicated for himself?” NBC
Only one term ? Aren’t you just a little disappointed, even… (horror !) dissatisfied ?
“…we have no reason to believe that the street address is somehow wrong.” NBC
Noticed your agony when exhausting the possibility it might be correct.
“I believe you are misrepresenting Dr Conspiracy’s position.” NBC
So are you: the purport of the HA story was Dunham–Obama addresses, not birth announcements. I’ve noticed you’re more than a little confused about those addresses yourself.
“…his so called facts’ are nothing more than speculation…” NBC
You do me a grave injustice, NBC, if you believe what I have posted here represents the sum or a fraction of my ability to speculate.
“…the lack of a coherent argument…” NBC
I have found coherent arguments won’t certain minds, especially since Obama is stiffening resistance with ongoing millions of campaign money (FEC data for 2009). Inconsistencies and strangeness are as much as will keep open discussion.
“…opposing him on his policies…” NBC
NBC has not the foggiest notion what my politics are and I am not going to cheapen them for his amusement. My interest in this case has nothing to do with politics. Please don’t have me repeat this disclaimer.
“Barack Obama presented his COLB…Official statements by Hawaii government…” NBC
See what I mean: a sanctimonious diatribe about the evils of speculation and here I catch the preacher swigging bourbon in the back of the tent. How can I hope to keep the faith when the preacher is such a hypocrite ?
1 vt redact: to digest or reduce scientific or literary materials; n redaction: revision, editing, rearrangement – so said my dictionary when first consulted on the matter. I am not responsible for later abuses.
2 “I don’t know what “waved through by the COLB” means”: Dr C
Two related records, and the later incomplete, edited, redacted (above) version does not disclose flaws in the earlier, giving a misleading impression.
3 “presumption of Hawaiian Law”: Dr C
It is not the case that Hawaii vital records cannot be the subject of review: see HRS. “Presumption lends structure to the argument, but it does not foreclose its further development.” (University of Chicago Law Review, 40 (1973–4) The COLB only knows and attests to facts from its own post-2001 database, not the entire, unedited 1961 record, which under FRE rules attorneys can request for examination. Whoever dreamt up COLBs, whereby not all fields were transferred (legalese: duplicated) from the original paper record to the electronic database, was an incompetent twerp.
It’s not about me.
“…when I asked what LAW required governed entry of information on long form birth certificates, I meant what HAWAII law.” Expelliarmus
Hawaii didn’t and don’t have special regulations which differed from those in other states. Or… you suggest they did ?
WAYK — you claimed that there was a law that required that the parents address be correctly filled on a birth certificate. I asked you what law was that.
Now you tell me that there is no Hawaii law that says that. In other words: even though that information might at times be collected, it apparently is not required under Hawaii law, and is not mandatory that it be included with a birth registration.
The laws of other states are irrelevant.
Well you seem to think that the COLB is about you: YOU haven’t seen anything other than photos, therefore it doesn’t exist.
The same rationale would apply no matter what form of document Obama chose to release publicly — all YOU would ever see would be photos.
No, I just know that the friends who were quoted by interviewers said that Ann visited Seattle for a few weeks in August 1961, and then returned to Hawaii. They said that she “might” have enrolled in classes at UW, but she didn’t stick around to attend them. It also appears from the record that she might have signed up for *extension* courses, which are often correspondence courses — so the University’s records of enrollment do not show that she was living there.
If you look at all of the accounts that have been given, it seems that Ann visited Seattle for a few weeks in August 1961 and that she moved to an apartment in January 1962 – there is no evidence as to where she was living in the interim, but her friends seemed to think that she was somewhere other than Washington.
I’m just a lot more thorough than you, WAYK, and a lot less prone to jump to firm conclusions based on media reports of people’s recollections of events 45+ years after the fact.
Barack Obama wasn’t born yet when his grandparents moved to Hawaii, so he would have no knowledge where they first lived other than what he was told. It is quite possible that they lived in a small apartment before finding the first “house” to live in — after all, finding a place in a new city isn’t that easy.
WAYK: “If details matter, why did the details of Ann Dunham living and studying in Seattle from August 1961 emerge neither from Obama nor his biographers but were uncovered by researchers initially derided as conspiracists by shouters like NBC ?”
Perhaps because it didn’t happen. The sources are contradictory.
I gave you a very plausible explanation: the marriage was one of convenience, entered into only to legitimize the baby. Ann had some sort of falling out with her parents, probably as a result of their disapproval of her pregnancy and choice of partner, and moved into the home of a friend.
You seem to be assuming a much greater degree of stability in living arrangements than I was accustomed to in my youth and that I observe among my own offspring. I think it is quite possible that there was a lot of moving around because of family tensions.
You also seem to think that 8 miles is some extraordinarily long distance. Back in 1961, people in Hawaii did own cars and used them to get from place to place. “Highway” means what it sounds like – a major thoroughfare. The house on Kalanianaole Highway is 8.1 miles from Kapiolani medical center, which according to Google maps is a 14 minute drive.
Or did you think that the plan was for her to walk the 1.4 miles from 2277 Kamehameha Avenue when she went into labor?
WAYK: “Whoever dreamt up COLBs, whereby not all fields were transferred (legalese: duplicated) from the original paper record to the electronic database, was an incompetent twerp.”
That strongly worded but profoundly ignorant remark, to a professional in the field, reveals probably more than anything to me that you’re an impassioned partisan rather than a competent researcher.
All the states are moving/have moved this way. Let me suggest you read my article Birth Certificates 101 to help you understand the concept of the “certified copy”.
See also the National Center for Health Statistics Model State Vital Statistics Act and Regulations.
As for the rest of the above, WAYK resists learning how these terms are used in the vital records industry and makes the nonsensical assertions that the practice of selecting some fields (insisting on using words such as editing, revision or redaction which imply CHANGE) somehow hides flaws, while failing to give any cogent reason for asserting that there ARE flaws.
All vital records regulations are state specific.
“Or did you think that the plan was for her to walk the 1.4 miles from 2277 Kamehameha Avenue when she went into labor?”
Brilliant!
JMO – it’s because they can’t stand having a black man in the White House and his background is just “exotic ( foreign)” enough that they can dust up a bunch of foolishness that other like-minded people can glom onto in hopes of getting rid of him. I think they latched onto the word “Usurper” as a substitute for “N!@@er”. Listen to how they say it when they manage to get on the TV box.
1 “[Obama Jr] wasn’t born yet…he would have no knowledge…other than what he was told.” Expelliarmus
Fact: Obama Jr took his father to the location of a HOUSE that Jr believed in 1971, and still believed in 1995, was his g’parents first HOUSE in Hawaii. Options: a. somebody told him true b. somebody told him false c. nobody told him d. everybody forgot where it was. Probability: option “a” – on the basis that Obama Jr’s mother proofread the typescript (“During the writing of this book [Dreams From My Father], she [mother] would read the drafts [plural], correcting stories…”] and the improbability that, on the day of that walk or earlier or later, Jr’s family lied. An outside possibility is the suggestion that Obama Jr didn’t himself write Dreams From My father and so can’t be held responsible for its content… but I doubt if that will be proposed here..
2 “…possible that they lived in a small apartment before finding the first “house”…”
My understanding is that Stanley Armour Dunham went over to Hawaii before his wife and daughter when offered a job.
3 “Perhaps because it didn’t happen. The sources are contradictory.” Dr C
If Ann Obama did not live and study in WA during 1961-2, what explains the printed directory listing from 1961, to whose image I linked at an earlier page, and the multiple confirmatory accounts given by visitors to, and the co-resident babysitter at, Ann’s address ?
4 “Ann had some sort of falling out with her parents…You also seem to think that 8 miles is some extraordinarily long distance… people in Hawaii did own cars…did you think that the plan was for her to walk the 1.4 miles from 2277 Kamehameha Avenue when she went into labor?”
Such a falling out that Ann’s parents then and there financed the study and living expenses of mother and child in Seattle for at least a year, and again in Hawaii on their return. Such a falling out that they all moved in together in 1964 and, more probably, much much earlier… Eight miles up the highway in 1961, a naive and inexperienced daughter of 18, husband studying in the city (or worse, non-supportive and not there), without a car, not long in the state, just arrived in the neighborhood, and getting more and more pregnant and immobile every day…? I would not advise and would not expect responsible parents\grandparents-to-be (and the Dunhams gave EVERY indication of being responsible parents) to take the risk. Better to keep her safe at home, close to hospital. On the other hand, if the wild-child, teen rebel scenario really is insisted upon: who knows where and how far that wayward girl may run off….?
What makes you assume that Ann didn’t have a car?
Also, if you consider it so improbable that the Dunhams would allow their pregnant 18 year old to live in a house 15 minutes away… how can you give any credence whatsoever that they would have allowed her to travel alone to Africa during late pregnancy?
And if you don’t find the born-in-Africa theory credible, then what possible difference does it make where various members of the Dunham family lived at various points in their lives.
(I would note from your comments that it is very, very obvious that you have never been the parent of a teenage girl. You clearly don’t have a lot of experience with pregnancy either.)
1″ ‘an incompetent twerp.’ That strongly worded but profoundly ignorant remark…” Dr C
I am not going to dispute the issue from my close knowledge and understanding of the design and implementation of current database systems in leading American institutions: staying strictly within the realm of fact, let’s just say this peevish response doesn’t particularly concern me. I can’t think why Dr C became so…. defensive: it could not have been construed in any way as pointing in the good Dr’s direction.
2 “you’re an impassioned partisan rather than a competent researcher…” Dr C
From my own and friends’ perspective that is really quite amusing – so it would be entirely inappropriate to attribute to it a seriousness it could not possibly sustain, except to inquire, in the same spirit of humor: whose or which cause is it that I am supposed to be championing ? Make it good: we want to enjoy this one too… Just like when I was accused…imagine !…of being an OBOT.
3 “Redact”, in all other respects a beautiful word: but if professionals are going to coin jargon they should do so with some regard to meaning, and be prepared to acknowledge they came late to the party. Try this example: “to leverage”. “The exercise or possession of leverage” is one thing; “to lever” is another; “to leverage” is nothing at all. Quarter-educated “professionals” stupid enough to invent this word are stupid enough to create economy-swallowing black holes of toxic debt. (Just as quarter-educated “professionals” stupid enough to invent COLBs are stupid enough to create toxic constitutional crises.) Somebody’s position may depend on linguistic barbarity: mine, and that of the English language, do not. We were here before “to leverage”, and the like, so we can afford to call it what it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
“Urban Dictionary: Leverage: A meaningless buzzword forged from the furnaces of Hell by Satan’s wordsmiths.
Steve: Can we take this off-line, I’m hungry. I’m going to leverage a sandwich. Paula: Great idea, I could also leverage some food. Steve: Come on then, we can leverage my car to get to the sandwich leverager. Paula: Good leverage, we should leverage your leverage so we’ll leverage…. Steve: …Leverage.” http://tinyurl.com/Urb-Dict
4 Two technical points: a) read your post (on certs) but didn’t notice any discussion of how vital records are handled internationally: not being tangled in the briars of…what shall we call it ?… the “anxiety” we are all too familiar with in America, other civilized countries have systems less susceptible to …what shall we call it ?… “ambiguity” and certainly no controversies as to the facts of their leaders’ births. b) A comment by a reader claimed that long form Certificates were not available from Hawaii: my information is that this is NOT correct. As “a professional in the field” I’m suprised you allowed the comment to stand unremarked.
WAYK, it has now been confirmed by a number of correspondents that Hawaii no longer issues long form certificate to anyone (including those who want to prove Hawaiian birth- apparently the manual for that is under revision).
You can confirm that yourself by sending an email to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
You can find general information about Hawaii birth records on this page:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
May i join this issue, sometimes the address used for the birth cert is the mailing address you want correspondence(hospital letters, birth certificate, SS card, dr’s report etc) sent it need not necessarily be your permanent address. Its actually very common to give a mailing address as absolutely no one checks the address unless mails are not answered.
I use my inlaw’s address in Europe as my ebay & paypal address as paypal doesnt operate in my country. I do all my ebay transaction thru it without any problem as i always have some1 coming or going to that country
WAYK wrote:
Please cite your source.
WAYK:
I said accounts that Stanley Ann Obama lived and studied in WA in August 1961 were contradictory. It’s the August part I say is contradictory. If you have that link to the directory handy, please repeat.
Most of the above lacks substance to comment on; however on this:
Comments similar to the one WAYK cites are made frequently on this blog and I have commented on some of them. The main articles on the blog are “my work”. People can say whatever they want in comments, and I don’t feel responsible for editing every wrong statement someone makes. It’s not feasible that I be the “truth filter” for what now is a body of about 6,500 comments.
While I am a professional in the vital records field, I have never worked in Hawaii, and so I have no authoritative information on this question. My opinion, is that currently the State of Hawaii as a matter of administrative policy no longer provides long-form birth certificate copies (and the fact that none has appeared on the Internet tends to bear that out); however, I also believe based on my reading of Hawaiian law, one could get a long form although it might require a lawyer. Specifically, I would refer the reader to §338-13 which says in part “Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.” [emphasis added]
For international use there is a special type of certificate called an “Apostille certificate”. Such certificates typically come into play in proof of dual citizenship (since a passport is proof of US citizenship.) They are issued by a state governor or secretary of state. Apostille certificates are an advanced topic beyond the entry level “Birth Certificates 101” course, and the topic is irrelevant to the Obama discussion.
My guess that is that WAYK refers to the Hawaii Homelands brochure (which a Hawaii resident claimed on this blog was no longer correct) or he just read it on somebody’s blog.
WAYK says:
It is possible that I became offended (NOT DEFENSIVE) because WAYK said:
As it happens that several state registrars, whose systems produce COLB’s, are friends of mine and when someone calls friends of mine “incompetent twerps”, I might be expected to bristle at such a remark.
The other thing is that WAYK probably has looked into Ann Dunham’s biography more than I, so when he speaks with arrogant authority on that subject I don’t have too much to say except to point out objections of which I am aware. BUT when WAYK speaks with equal arrogant authority on a subject that I have 30 years experience, and what he says is total nonsense, then I know for sure that WAYK is not an honest researcher since he says things authoritatively that are just plain wrong, and obviously wrong to anybody who knows the topic. When someone speaks nonsense with arrogant authority, that makes them a partisan. WAYK also naively clings to general purpose dictionary definitions for industry technical terms. If he’s going to pretend to know something, at least he should learn the jargon.
What I find ironic (and WAYK probably doesn’t know this) is that the so-called long form from Hawaii, as exhibited by many examples (such as the ADAM certificate) is itself redacted as are virtually all birth certificates issued in the United States for at least the last 50 years. You may say, “how can it be redacted if it is a photocopy?” The answer is that it’s only a photocopy of top half of the form.
Without access to the forms and administrative procedures from Hawaii in 1961, it’s impossible to speak with certainty. From the little we have to go on, the most likely source of the birth announcement address was the mother’s usual residence. Modern systems collect both residence and mailing addresses.
WAYK: NBC is groping in the murk of a profound misundertanding of books and publishing, and that augurs ill for bringing him any further along.
In other words, WAYK has no answer. But worse, he is trying to impugn my other statements because he believes I show some misunderstanding about books and publishing.
WAYK: If details matter, why did the details of Ann Dunham living and studying in Seattle from August 1961 emerge neither from Obama nor his biographers but were uncovered by researchers initially derided as conspiracists by shouters like NBC ?
I never made any statements about where Ann Dunham did or did not live. Where Ann lived made no difference to Obama’s eligibility so at best it is a minor mystery, blown out of proportions by our friend WAYK.
I guess he is still upset about me exposing his errors. I understand.
Let me provide a plausible scenario:
Obama was a 3 month old when his mother left for Seattle to study there for one year. He was obviously too young to remember this and Ann may not have been too proud of the fact that she left a new born with her parents.
WAYK NBC’s sequence of thought implies that 1427 Alexander was the Dunham’s first HOUSE in Hawaii, when in fact 1427 Alexander was a small, cheap APARTMENT. The only HOUSE (repeat HOUSE) that Obama Jr could have identified as his grandparents’ first HOUSE in Hawaii (in Dreams From My Father) is the only address associated with them at that time: 2277 Kamehameha Avenue.
Nope, that’s the house where Ann lived, not her parents. It is more likely that the first house is the house on University.
I have outlined my thoughts as WAYK calls it in more detail here
WAYK: If NBC just adds these details to what he knows then a better composed and more coherent picture should form, gently asking to be understood. No need to force the experience: quietly relax and let the truth make itself very slowly apparent.
I highly doubt that you would recognize the truth dear WAYK, you are quick to take unknowns and spin your own story of intrigue and mystery where simpler explanations exist.
Of course, nothing really matters:
President Obama was born in Honolulu, on US soils and is thus eligible.
Do you agree or disagree? If you take rumours and speculations as serious ‘evidence’ then you surely must accept an official document?
Or is that too much to hope for?
WAYK: The only HOUSE (repeat HOUSE) that Obama Jr could have identified as his grandparents’ first HOUSE in Hawaii (in Dreams From My Father) is the only address associated with them at that time: 2277 Kamehameha Avenue.
Since WAYK already confused Mendell’s statement about where Obama moved, suggesting that 11th Avenue location was 1) close to the University 2) Opposite a small park, I have to politely request that he provides for the exact quote or reference to Dream from my fathers, since a quick search returns no relevant matches.
Let’s quote from the book:
There are two such houses possible:
She returned to Honolulu for Fall 1962. She is listed as living at 2277 Kamehameha Avenue with her son.
2234 University Avenue where Obama attended nearby kindergarten at Noelani Elementary School
Next quote
Two options: 2277 Kamehameha Avenue, but Obama was living at the address, although he may never have ‘known’ this house. Or the grandparents lived at another location before moving into the apartment? Perhaps “6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway” ?
Furthermore “By 1963 the Dunhams had moved into Apartment 110 of a six-year-old building at 1427 Alexander Street, records show.”
This is the time Ann Dunham was living at 2277 Kamehameha Avenue. Where her parents living with her at this address or where they living at a different address?
Someone who lives in Hawaii and has a library card, might go to this web site:
http://www.librarieshawaii.org/
and click the Ask a Librarian link and find out if they have any old phone books or city directories circa 1961 and could look up Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama, Barrack Obama, or Stanley Armour Dunham.
WAYK seems to be making the assumption that Ann Dunham was living in the same home with her parents. I don’t know why anyone should make that assumption.
It is typical for young college-age Americans to choose to live away from their parents — often in homes or apartments shared with other unrelated people. So its reasonable to conclude that Ann may simply shared a home with other students — she may have done this in 1963, and she could also have done this in 1961.
I’d note that it could be very difficult to document such tenancies, because many of the occupants are subtenants who are not even named in the leases, which are rarely reflected in public records in any case; almost all are renters who are renting from unrelated landlords, so their names rarely show up in property ownership records; and most will not show up in directories, either, which back in the 1960s were assembled from telephone listing data.
Typically in a student household there would have been a phone installed in the name of whoever set it up and pays the bill — that could pass on over time from one person to another without a change in the directory record or listing. Directories also were published once a year, with a publication date that lagged a couple of months behind the assembly of the data in it — so the year of a directory only a rough approximation of the year the person listed in it might have occupied the property indicated.
The bottom line is that more digging could come up with more evidence of different places where Ann Dunham might have lived, but the absence of documentation can never establish that she did NOT live in a particular place.
The following comment from Curious Blue at Politijab.com:
“I would note from your comments that it is very, very obvious…” Expelliarmus
Expelliarmus seems to have difficulty with the following proposition, which I must repeat: it’s not about me or mine. No one should ever stoop so despicably low as to introduce Expelliarmus’ family into this discussion. Leave family out of it…. that was the very very least of my own family’s comments. Close reading of posts to fathom the personality or circumstances of a discussant are notoriously prone to error (as is trying to guess what someone might look like from a phone conversation) and suggests a lack of confidence in the argument being presented. Furthermore, civilized discussion necessarily implies self-discipline.
“What makes you assume that Ann didn’t have a car?” Expelliarmus
Improbabability: evidence that Ann Dunham needed a car before August 1961 ? Or could afford a car before August 61 ? Or (via her parents) owned a car before August 61 ? Or was seen driving a car before August 61 ? None.
“…if you don’t find the born-in-Africa theory credible, then what possible difference does it make…” Expelliarmus
So many assumptions, so little time… I have never mentioned Africa. Repeated with emphasis: I have never mentioned Africa. In this discussion I have not decided what the outcome of inquiry must be. The issue under discussion is: was Ann Dunham’s residence on August 4, 1961 the “Mother’s Residence” (6085 Kalanianaole Highway) that the informant entered into Obama Jr’s birth record. Going beyond the issue is avoiding the issue. Facts:
1 All evidence shows Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham were supportive parents.
2 Ann Dunham was naive, impressionable, and impulsive, as evidenced by her getting pregnant aged 17, early in November 1960. (Forget retrojecting current attitudes and lifestyles into the era of 1960-1).
3 Ann Dunham quit studying and the student life at UH on becoming pregnant.
4 Mr and Mrs Dunham were not happy with either Obama Sr or the Ann-Obama Sr relationship and “marriage” (Ann’s letter to a friend in WA; as told by Ann to her son (“Dreams etc”); and Madelyn Dunham in Mendell: “[Obama Sr] was straaaaange…”).
5 No evidence supports claims that the Obama Sr-Ann Dunham relationship to August 1961 was abusive or a sham. (Ann Dunham to son: “It wasn’t your father’s fault…”)
6 Ann Dunham, who only came to Hawaii after June 1960, had no discernible job or income with which to pay her own rent and expenses.
7 Ann Duham proofread and corrected her son’s book, where he indicates that Kamehameha Ave was the Dunham’s first home from 1960 through 1964 (their home “before…University Ave”).
8 A neighborhood witness from 1961 places all three Dunham’s as living at 2277 Kamehameha Ave during 1960-61.
9 No friend of Obama Sr ever saw, or even knew of Ann or Sr residing, at Kalanianaole Highway.
10 No friend or relative of Ann ever saw, or even knew of Ann or Sr residing, at Kalanianaole Highway.
11 No friend or relative of Mr and Mrs Dunham ever saw, or even knew of the Dunhams residing, at Kalanianaole Highway.
12 No record or witness establishes where Ann Dunham resided during the summer of 1961.
13 In Seattle from August 1961 Ann Dunham went by the name “Ann Obama” and witnesses have put on record the positive terms used by Ann Obama to describe her “marriage”. (Madelyn Dunham: “A lot of grandiose plans, a lot of promises that never worked out…”)
Given the above there are six possibilities to account for Kalanianaole being given as the “Mother’s Address”:
1 The Lefforges received Ann Dunham as a guest. 2 The Lefforges rented out and the Dunham’s paid Ann’s rent and living expenses at Kalanianaole. 3 The Lefforges rented out and Obama Sr paid Ann’s rent and living expenses at Kalanianaole. 4 Ann was never at Kalanianaole. 5 The birth announcements are forgeries. 6 The address was a mistake.
1 There is no evidence that Ann Duham knew the Lefforge family. Ann Dunham had only been a student at UH in 1960 for three months, so it is improbable that she would have known or become sufficiently friendly with a professor (Orland Scott Lefforge) to be housed by him. As there is absolutely no evidence that Ann’s “marriage” to Obama Sr was abusive this cannot be a reason for Ann being at Kalanianaole. The Lefforge family had three children under 7 (two under 2); as reported by witnesses in Washington, before Ann left for Hawaii in 1960, she had no interest in children and had never been a babysitter. Ann Dunham’s demonstrated ignorance about how to care for her son in August 1961 makes it highly improbable that Ann was housed by the Lefforges to help with their children. Obama Sr had been a student longer at UH than Ann, but there is no indication that Sr ever knew the Lefforges; similarly, no evidence links the Lefforges with Ann Dunham’s parents.
2 Ann Dunham’s parents were at all times supportive after their daughter’s return from Washington in (probably) 1963, and both Ann and Jr lived with the Dunham’s from that time. There was no reason or need publicly known, and so it is uncharacteristic and improbable, for the Dunhams to have paid for their naive, inexperienced, first-time pregnant daughter to live away from home before August 1961.
3 Obama was already living in a house at 625 11th Ave, closer to the hospital, Ann’s parents, and UH than Kalanianaole Highway: he had no reason and probably not the means to rent all or part of Kalanianaole for Ann.
4 It’s very difficult to prove a negative, but the truth is that not one shred of evidence, other than the birth announcements, connects Ann Dunham to Kalanianaole.
5 The birth announcements are contained on archive film: faking them is well-nigh impossible as unexposed film is now unavailable and reproducing these films would require re-shooting them entirely, with all the tell-tale signs of generative degradation. Technical discovery would surely expose a wider deception, and any previously unknown details only open, not close, debate.
6 It’s highly improbable that two separate newspapers would make exactly the same mistake, therefore a mistake would have to exist on the original Vital Records list sent to them for publication. It’s highly improbable that error(s) occurred as the list was being transcribed, but the only way to eliminate the possibility of error(s) would be to examine the original 1961 record.
“…if you consider it so improbable…how can you give any credence…” Expelliarmus
Expelliarmus has at last reached the inconsistency that can only be explained by a lie. Possibly an error but (in view of the coverup by the family of Ann Dunham’s residence in Seattle from August 61) in high probability: a lie.
1 It is highly probable that the birth informant was either Ann Dunham or one of her parents.
2 It is highly probable that the reason why 11th Ave was not given as the “Mother’s Residence” on the birth record (and thus circulating the impression of a normal, happy family event involving Obama Sr) is that Ann Dunham was not living at this address at the time of Jr’s birth.
3 It is highly probable that Ann Dunham or one of her parents would have given 2277 Kamehameha as Ann’s residence had she been living there at the time of Jr’s birth: this did not happen.
4 It is highly probable that the address (6085 Kalanianaole Highway) entered on Jr’s birth record as “Mother’s Residence” had NO connection to Mr and Mrs Dunham, Ann Dunham, or Barack Obama Sr.
5 It is highly probable that an address with which Ann Dunham was associated but where she did not reside in August 61, and which was announced as the home of a newborn baby, would have come under suspicion from the Dunham’s or Obama Sr’s neighbors and friends.
6 It is highly probable that an address with which Ann Dunham was NOT associated and where she did NOT reside in August 61, but which was announced as the home of a newborn baby, would NOT come under suspicion from the Dunham’s or Obama Sr’s neighbors and friends if it was sufficiently distant from the homes of the Dunhams and Obama Sr.
7 It is highly probable that a birth announcement falsely associated with a certain address would go publicly unremarked if the house was unoccupied: for example, due to an August vacation.
8 It is highly probable that Orland Lefforge (died July 4, 2007) was during the 1960s on the senate staff of the long-serving Democratic US Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye.
9 It is highly probable that the reason why no member of the Lefforge family has ever come forward to claim their home was the first home of Senator or President Barack Obama is that this family has never possessed any knowledge or evidence that would support such a claim.
10 It is highly probable that the reason why 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was given as the “Mother’s Residence” on the birth record is the fact that Ann was never connected with, and was not living at, this address at any time through the period of her pregnancy and son’s birth.
11 With no evidence or probability that before August 1961 Ann Dunham had resided anywhere in Hawaii other than at 2277 Kamehameha Ave, there can be no reason why the birth informant would record that Ann was living out at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, except with the highly probable intention to deceive.
The preceding is largely an “argument from ignorance” (that is, “the lack of information” comprises most of the “evidence”). The information available on Stanley Ann’s pregnancy and delivery is simply too sketchy overall to support any conclusions based on some particular detail being missing.
However, rather than trying to make events fit the facts we do have (specifically a contemporary newspaper birth announcement showing Stanley Ann’s residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway), you are trying to turn the absence of facts to say just the opposite.
How about this argument from ignorance: if Stanley Ann Obama gave the health department a false address and it was published in the newspaper, would not SOMEONE have noticed and told the “real resident” of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway about it? WAYK’s central failing is the lack of any coherent reason for Stanley Ann to give a false address or what possible value to her this alleged deception might be.
The most plausible conclusion is that the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address is right, and you don’t have the whole story. I got a contemporary published source and you got is your own opinions about what’s probable and what’s not, largely based on what you don’t know.
And for what purpose? None is given. And indeed there is not even evidence that Ann had resided at 2277 Kamhehameha Ave, a place she did not move into until she returned from Seattle in 1962.
You are once again jumping to conclusions based on imaginary scenarios where you reject out of hand the plausible to focus instead on the implausible.
I understand
WAYK, the reason I raised the issue of the improbability of the African birth story is simply that, assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, the issue of where his mother was residing at the time is of no possible relevance.
If a pregnant woman shows up at a hospital emergency room in Honolulu and gives birth, and if she lies about her name, lies about her address, lies about her age, and lies about her marital status, and lies about the identity of the father — and after giving birth abandons the baby at the hospital and never returns — that does not change the fact that the baby has been born in the time and place that will be indicated on the birth certificate filed by the hospital. That baby may end up with a birth certificate premised on a lot of false extraneous information — but that baby will be a citizen, even though the true identity of the parents may never be known.
The only relevant information, for the purpose of the vital record’s function in establishing the facts concerning birth, is the time and place of birth.
So all of this fantasizing you are doing about why in your mind the address must somehow be wrong can only be relevant under one narrow set of circumstances — that (a) Obama was in fact born somewhere other than Hawaii and (b) the true facts about the mother’s place of residence will somehow provide evidence of the true whereabouts of Obama’s birth.
If your theory about the residence is that 8 miles is too far from home for the “naive” 18 year old you imagine to venture….. then Africa seems out of the question. Given that Hawaii is a chain of islands in the middle of the Pacific, there’s not any other out-of-country address for birth-giving that comes to mind that is within the 8-mile radius that you are arguing forms the outer limits of Ann’s likely domain.
So what’s your point?
NBC, WAYK’s “reasoning” is so convoluted that I can’t even follow it. He begins with unlikely and unreasonable premises and works himself around to the truly ludicrous. (As evidenced by his above conclusion that the most “probable” reason that 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was given is “the fact” that Ann was “never connected” with it. (It seems to me that under any circumstances, the least likely scenario would be the giving of a random address that an individual has no connection with).
“2277 Kamhehameha Ave, a place she did not move into until she returned from Seattle in 1962.” NBC
You see but you do not observe. Before July 2008 the Honolulu Advertiser reported more than once that the Dunhams lived in a large house at Kamhehameha. That is, until the discovery of the newspaper birth announcements. Only then did HA rewrite the story to suggest the Dunhams lived out at 6085 Kalanianaole, and imply that Ann moved to Kamhehameha in 1963. The HA’s deflecting the evidence; and it’s not persuasive.
The question to ask is: if 6085 Kalanianaole had or had not been used as a false address by the Dunhams in the original 1961 record, how would the evidence differ from what we have now ? The preponderance of the evidence or probability should be your guide (as it would be in a civil suit), not beyond reasonable doubt, nor beyond all doubt. Lay out three columns headed “actual”, “true”, and “false”; place in each respective column the evidence as we have it now, the evidence as it might be if the address were genuine, and the evidence as it might be if the address were false; see which columns most agree, and then you will observe the answer to the question. To refuse to do the exercise would speak for itself; an argument contrary to the result would defy reason, not be persuasive. and again that would speak for itself. We can expect that on this issue a court would do just the same exercise, allowing the court’s likely response to the (paper) COLB’s status to be predicted.
” WAYK’s “reasoning” is so convoluted…”
There are some who refuse to acknowledge simple logic. For example: in 1961 UK citizenship by descent was unavailable to illegitimate children; Obama Jr’s parents were unmarried or bigamous, making Jr illegitimate; therefore Obama Jr was not a UK citizen by descent at birth. Refusniks object with: “The divorce decree proves the Obama marriage” or “British law doesn’t apply in America”. After a long excursion into British nationality law, and marriage and legitimacy law in British Kenya and US, refusniks may say: “Obama was still subject to UK jurisdiction” or “Obama admitted UK citizenship at his website”. Apparently refusniks don’t understand that deflecting evidence will not defeat an argument: only an argument defeats an argument. A physicist’s argument that the chair contains more space than matter is not refuted by kicking the chair. Compared to deflecting evidence an argument will always seem convoluted: it does more.
“…the least likely scenario would be the giving of a random address that an individual has no connection with.” Expelliarmus
It was not said that 6085 Kalanianaole was chosen randomly. That an individual has no connection with an address used for deceptive purposes does not necessarily mean the address was chosen at random; it may have been, but deceptive calculations more probably involve the use of deliberate criteria, especially when a deception remains successful over decades.
“If a pregnant woman shows up at a [Hawaii] hospital…and if she [tells] lies…the birth certificate [is] filed by the hospital…[and establishes] the facts concerning birth…So what’s your point?” Expelliarmus
The pregnant liar is colorful story (incorporating the logical fallacy of the “Undistributed Middle”) but is a) inapplicable because it diverges in too many ways from the matter of Obama’s birth, and b) if applicable contains too many groundless assumptions when applied to the matter of Obama’s birth. For example, in Expelliarmus’ dramatic story the facts of birth are witnessed by the hospital of birth: however Obama and family have identified TWO separate hospitals as the location of Jr’s birth:
“Barack Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center” (Illinois General Assembly: Encyclopedia II)
“Queen’s Medical Center” (sister Maya, November 2004)
“[BHOII] was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women” (sister Maya, February 2008)
“Kapiolani Medical Center” (Washington Post, Honolulu Advertiser)
It’s very strange that such confusion should persist when the pre-2001, pre-COLB birth certificate(s) Obama Jr possessed, read, and used would have the “Name of Hospital…of Birth” included, centered, and intended for easy inspection, memorization, and dispelling of confusion… That mystery aside, the data entry “Name of Hospital, Institution, or Street Address of Birth” is never transferred from an original record to the informationally poorer Hawaii short form COLB (stamped: “I Certify this is… a[n] ABSTRACT of the record on file…State Registrar”), so right now it’s anyone’s guess if Obama Jr actually was born in a hospital, and which hospital it might have been. This is crucially important: the precise details of the varied ways to register a birth in Hawaii in 1961 are complex, but it’s enough to say even Dr Conspiracy has written elsewhere that “someone not born in a hospital could, with the help of others, swear falsely to establish a Hawaiian birth”. Given that lies and deception are usually deployed to achieve some purpose or advantage; given that the Dunham family were skilled deceivers with regard to the facts of Obama Jr’s birth (Federal Rules of Evidence 803-804); given that a Dunham family highly-probable-lie has been exposed in Jr’s original birth record itself; and given that we do not know from which type of original birth record an as-yet unproduced Obama Jr paper COLB might abstract its limited data…. the point is that if Obama Jr’s paper (again: paper) COLB is ever produced in court it would a) NOT be admissible as a true duplicate which is “by the same impression…matrix…or accurately reproduces the original” (FRE 1001-1003), b) NOT satisfy the Completeness Rule (FRE 106), c) would NOT count as Best Evidence (FRE 1002), and d) would NOT contain sufficient data to act as an effective instrument to disentangle the truth from the lies woven into the “facts” of Jr’s birth (FRE 301: the opposing party can produce ANY evidence to rebut the COLB’s prima facie presumption).
“…the issue of where his [Obama Jr] mother was residing at the time is of no possible relevance… The only relevant information, for the purpose of the vital record’s function in establishing the facts concerning birth, is the time and place of birth.” Expelliarmus
It may be that Expelliarmus assumes (as above) that Obama Jr was born in a hospital; at this time however, until we have documentary evidence to the contrary, it is equally logical, probable, and credible to posit that the “Name of Hospital, Institution, or Street Address of Birth” entered into Obama Jr’s original and complete 1961 birth record is “6085 Kalanianaole Highway”. Or some other address just as totally unconnected to any member of the Dunham family. It would be an impressive argument or fantasy which could knit together and explain the Dunham-Washington cover-up, the Dunham-“Mother’s Address” highly-probable-lie and a totally unassociated Dunham-“Address of Birth” (and highly-probable-lie) into a pattern that a reasonable person would find normal, coherent, honest, persuasive AND leave the time and place of Jr’s birth unproblematic, safe from investigation, and open to critical test. Critical test because an argument not open to disproof is not an argument but merely an assertion or claim. So far no critical test has been offered with regard to the assumption that Ann Dunham WAS residing at 6085 Kalanianaole. Merely deflecting evidence without an equally probable argument does not persuade; conversely, if an argument withstands critical tests, it is corroborated.
“It can be shown that a good approximation of the PROBABILITY [emphasized] of an hypothesis can usually be attained by comparing it with the next most likely hypothesis. On the assumption that the two most likely hypotheses in a legal case are those advanced by the respective parties this is what the legal system does.”
Probability–The Logic of the Law, Bernard Robertson and G. A. Vignaux, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter, 1993)
Given these legal hypotheses are mutually exclusive then rejection of one hypothesis connotes acceptance of the other. An example of a critical test: 1) IF the Dunham family did not deliberately cover up the fact that Jr and his mother were living in Washington state within three weeks of his birth; 2) IF the Dunham family did not in high probability lie in Jr’s original 1961 birth record; and 3) IF we could assume (from, say, both a Hawaii medical record and a Vital Records statement) what has yet to be established (hospital birth and type of registration), then no reasonable grounds would exist to doubt, IF and when produced, that an otherwise admissible, GENUINE Obama paper (and only a paper) COLB would be satisfactory prima facie evidence. Unfortunately for Obama (who wrote “I don’t fault people their suspicions. I learned long ago to distrust my childhood and the stories that shaped it”), Dunham family deceit and cover-up DO allow reasonable grounds for doubt (which Obama himself shares), and once brought to court Obama Jr cannot avoid production of his original birth record, although his attorneys have submitted this will cause him “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”. When many thousands of Americans annually “endure” the minimal annoyance, oppression, burden and expense of producing long form birth Certificates and are proud to do so, it’s inevitable that suspicion will proliferate about Obama’s stubborn non-production of his long form Certificate, about the embarrassment Obama himself believes its production would cause him, and about the contrast in expense between $0 for releasing a previously held long form Certificate, $10 for releasing a newly issued long form Certificate, and around $1,000,000 (campaign funds: FEC report) paid to lawyers for resisting attempts to release those very same, inexpensive Certificates. Simply: what reasonable judgement is Obama Jr applying here ? It’s not his money ? He does not wish to disclose information (such as “hospital of birth”) already admitted ? The principle of privacy in public life, as extended to the sealed legal records of political rivals (eg Blair Hull http://tinyurl.com/NYT-BHO-Hull ) ? He likes to play with and manipulate opponents and decent citizens alike ?
“…fantasizing …” Expelliarmus
A related pattern of strong probabilities is not a string of “unrealistic or improbable suppositions” or fantasy: probabilities are admissible in court and decide lawsuits, unless countered by arguments of equal probability. A refusal to countenance anything other than Ann Dunham or her parents being shown BEYOND reasonable doubt, or even beyond ALL doubt, to have lied in Obama Jr’s birth record is a DEMONSTRABLE fantasy. In case anyone disbelieves this:
“…the framework adopted by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)…of framing the rules in terms of probability and relevance…is based on a sound philosophy… The idea of the chaining together of a sequence of single inferences has long been fundamental to notions of argumentation that the Anglo-American concept of legal evidence is based on. ”
Legal Argumentation And Evidence, Douglas N. Walton, 2002
“Judges instruct jurors to decide civil cases element by element, with each element decided on a more-probable-than-not basis. Once jurors have decided that an element is probable, they are to consider the element established, repress any remaining doubts about it, and proceed to consider the next element. If the plaintiff proves each element by a preponderance [50.1%] of the evidence, the jury will find in his favor.”
The Evidence or the Event? On Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts, Charles Nesson, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 7 (May, 1985)
“… the “naive” 18 year old you imagine…” Expelliarmus
18 year old coeds made pregnant by handsome, exotic foreigners on Presidential Election Night (probably), trusting to assurances that the silver-tongued stranger’s far-away marriage is over, are naive by definition, not by imagination: today and 48 years ago.
“If…8 miles is too far from home ….then Africa seems out of the question…” Expelliarmus
There you go, again… Africa !
For the third (and to be hoped, last) time: the high probability of malarkey concerning the registration of Obama Jr’s birth does not depend upon, nor necessarily points to, Africa. There are other credible scenarios (again: other credible scenarios), so prematurely and fallaciously tossing in the false dichotomy of an African scenario avoids the issue of the high probability of a false address in Jr’s original birth record. What does increase the probability of malarkey concerning the registration of Obama Jr’s birth is the recorded impulsivity of Ann Dunham: an impulsivity recorded, not least and not exclusively, in becoming pregnant by an older, worldly, charismatic, and dedicated African nationalist who had not the slightest intention of remaining in Hawaii to settle and raise a family, but who was happy to see that other US citizens he fathered were born in Kenya (illegitimacy not transmitting Kenyan nationality). What problems Ann Dunham’s naivety and impulsiveness caused her family and how they tried to resolve them have not been officially explored, never mind explained. This we know and it’s very simple: one recently discovered deception supports the existence of another recently discovered highly-probable-lie which predicates, in turn, more lies.
The necessity for all the deceit and lies, where it may lead, who was doing what, where and when in the summer of 1961 is for official inquiry, not me, to establish; but lies there certainly were, and lies breed legitimate suspicion. Nothing Obama, advisors, or attorneys have produced thus far, certainly not the inadmissible and dubious online images of a purported COLB, and most certainly not Dunham family misdirection and lies, has provided satisfactory answers to these legitimate suspicions (which Obama himself doesn’t fault, and indeed shares): to do so begins with the original and complete record used to register Obama Jr’s birth in 1961 and the information it contains. The convoluted reasoning and probabilities above merely confirm what is inevitable, should this issue ever comes to court.
Of course, WAYK is correct that the COLB as presented is not admissible, however the original document which was photographed and scanned is admissible in court. Since the COLB clearly shows Obama to be born in Honolulu, the issue is at best a red herring.
Since the courts will have to accept the COLB as a valid equivalent of the original Birth Certificate and since the COLB clearly shows President Obama to be a natural born citizen, the hopes that the courts will require disclosure beyond what under the federal law must be accepted, seems rather ill argued.
Furthermore, no real evidence of deceptions have been shown, other than a disagreement about the birth address of Obama, which would still make him born in Honolulu and thus of minor interest. Certainly, no evidence has been shown that there is deception here, other than a minor issue.
WAYK’s attempt to present his beliefs as facts are of little relevance
No evidence of lies have been exposed, no evidence of the Dunhams being skilled deceivers has been presented.
And people wonder why legal challenges continue to fail…
I am impressed by WAYK’s ability to present fiction as fact. Does WAYK even believe that which he writes I wonder?
It’s Kemehemeha. Is this error going to undermine your argument? Under your own logic it seems so…
In other words, when newspapers correct their errors you consider it a problem? Rather a weird position, I’d say.
The evidence clearly shows that Dunham did not move into Kamehameha until after she returned from Seattle.
Facts versus fiction my dear friend.
Some facts
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
I have not yet found any evidence that the Honolulu Advertiser wrote otherwise. Are you perhaps confusing WND with the HA?
Cheers
Let’s explore Hawaiian law in some detail
Regardless, the COLB remains a valid certificate to show that Obama was born in Honolulu. Is the ‘hope’ now that the BC does not show a hospital entry? The BC would still show Obama to be born in the US, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, what would the courts have to do but to accept this information?
My post=April 27.
WAYK’s 2000-word response = May 16
Did it take a full 19 days to write all that stuff?
Needless to say, I have neither the time nor patience to bother to read the latest convoluted diatribe…. so I won’t bother with a response.
The newspaper is adapting the story to fit the facts. A technique I highly commend.
That was very long, but unless I missed it, you still haven’t given a reason for Stanley Ann Obama to have given a false address. If there were some terrible break between Stanley Ann and Barack Sr that resulted in the President being born in Washington State, I could see the possibility of them not telling Barack Jr, but faking a birth registration in Hawaii is far too extreme to be explained by that.
“The necessity for all the deceit and lies”, says WAYK, but I have yet to see the evidence of lies or deceit.
The point is, it doesn’t matter if the address given was false – that still doesn’t impact the validity of the birth certificate itself. The purpose of a birth certificate is to provide documentation of the time and location of birth of the individual named in the certificate.
Mistakes or falsehoods in the reporting of collateral information do not vitiate the legal effect of the certificate itself. If they did, it would undermine the entire system of recording births, as it is probably quite common that certain types of information on the certificates (age of mother, identity of father, marital status, etc.) are mistaken or deliberately false.
So absent affirmative evidence of fraud, the birth certificate will always stand — or direct, admissible and convincing evidence that the core fact of place of birth is misreported — the COLB would stand as proof.
ROTFL
Just a thought on the COLB. It is continually pointed out how it remains a Valid Certificate, which apparently it is. But it is the fact of accepting a lessor item that what exists that I find humorous, regardless that fact it is Valid.
My bicycle is a valid form of transportation, but I won’t ride it to work. Bread is a valid food I could eat 3 meals a day. Working at McD’s is a valid job, but many of us choose to do something better.
A grade of a B+ may get you into that college you want into, no need to work for an A, just accept what works….that’s all we need. Then again, a B+ would rank as one of the highest grades he has gotten since Nov.4th.
That’s the problem, it is not a lessor item. In many cases one cannot even obtain certified copies of the BC and in some cases the original documents may not longer exist once they are transferred to digital form.
I am glad to see how the TRUTH is finally starting to make sense to you, although you still seem to believe that the document is somehow a lessor version
Just a quibble over terms. A photocopy of the long form and a laser printed abstract (short form) are both “certified copies” if they bear the certification of the issuer (sign and/or seal). The thing which is not a certified copy would be the single original piece of paper in a secure facility in Hawaii, which is not ever going to leave there. All others are copies, either certified or not.
But on the other hand, taking the validation to perfection is nonsense. For example, taking DNA samples from Barack Obama and from some relatives to prove the he really is Barack Obama, and tracking down every living person who signed or ever had the chance of of handing the birth certificate and giving them polygraphs, and truth serum, and perhaps even “enhanced interrogation” techniques to make double dang sure they aren’t lying. Oh and subjecting them to financial audits for their whole lives to exclude bribery. And Carbon 14 dating of the paper and forensic analysis of the ink. Heck, we need to open all the state department files to see if he ever renounced his citizenship. We could send in a CIA team to break into Indonesian citizenship registries, and Kenyan birth registries to make sure there’s nothing there.
NBC… you use the terms.. “in many cases”.. “in some cases”.. “may not”. ALL terms of possibility, NOT definites.
I believe your dead wrong that the COLB isn’t a lessor item. I pay my taxes, I have the right to ask. My neighbor owns a Real Tool Set, but I’m not letting him tune up my car.
ps… do I confuse you without repeating what you said? I will if you need me to.
Perhaps you may want to explain under what consideration you consider the COLB to be a lessor document? From a legal perspective the COLB has the same relevance and validity as the original.
In other words, by any standard of relevance, the COLB is of equal value in the case of establishing Obama’s place of birth.
I understand why you would refuse to accept this but I believe your personal beliefs have little relevance here, other than being your personal beliefs.
Is that how I should interpret ‘lessor’? In the sense that you believe it to be such?
Legally, the paper COLB is THE ONLY legally proper document that Hawaii NOW issues — many of us have written to the Hawaii Dept. of Health to verify this fact, and the email has also been posted multiple times.
So it not only is an ACCEPTABLE form of proof (grade B) — it is also the BEST AVAILABLE form of proof. (grade A).
An original copy of the longer form version would only be admissible and acceptable evidence if it were a CERTIFIED copy — that is, if it bore the signature and seal of the Hawaii Dept of Health. If Obama’s mother obtained a certified copy some time after his birth, and Obama still had that old copy — then that would be proof of birth, and it would certainly provide more collateral factual information than the COLB. However, a copy of records issued by the hospital without the certification mark would not be considered as good – and probably would not be admissible in court or accepted as evidence in any court of law if a certified COLB was available.
Convenient how that works isn’t it EX? I have my Sons Original BC, FROM HAWAII born 1989. Completely acceptable Everywhere. TO bad a man as smart as the POTUS can’t pull that off. Make your excuses till the cows come in, thats are they are is excuses.
Let’s say that laws were passed across the country requiring documentation of place of birth to run for office, and your son decided to run for office and was required to send in a birth certificate that would remain on file with the board of elections. Would your son send in his only copy of that precious long form, or would he order a short form copy from Hawaii and send that in, since it is legally sufficient, and keep the long form?
“ROTFL” NBC
With no explanation of the acronym I can take it that ROTFL means “Refusal Of Truth Forfeits Logic”, and concedes my point (that is, to refuse to do the exercise speaks for itself). Here is the simple logic forfeited:
a The birth record address [6085 Kalanianaole] was deliberately given.
b A genuine birth record address usually has facts or evidence to support it; an address with no facts or evidence to support it is usually false
c As no facts or evidence support it, the birth record address given was in high probability deliberately false.
AND
aa Make three columns of evidence: list actual, if-true, and if-false.
bb Allow that true cannot equal false.
cc When if-true and actual match, then true=actual.
dd When if-false and actual match, then false=actual.
Example: How do we know there was a cosmic Big Bang ? True=Black night sky (limited size of universe=limited number of stars in eyeline) and background microwave radiation. False=White night sky (unlimited size of universe=unlimited stars in eyeline) and no background microwave radiation. Actual=Black night sky and background radiation of 2.7 degrees Kelvin. True=Actual. Big Bang proved by simple logic and none foolish enough to laugh it off.
Even assuming that the address given was ‘false’ or even ‘deliberately false’, assumptions for which no evidence exists, the simple fact remains that Obama was born in Honolulu (Kapiolana Medical Center according to Obama and Maya).
Your claims that the address given if false, or deliberately false remains fully without supporting evidence.
that you attempt to distract from the facts as we known them further strengthens my position.
For this I do thank you but honestly, I seem to be doing well without much of your help.
Good luck on your endeavors to show that the address was false and deliberately false.
Seems ROTFL exquisitely well described your ‘efforts’. You make me proud my friend.
“The newspaper is adapting the story to fit the facts…”
What “facts” ? This “adapted story” and its associated graphic ( November 9, 2008 ), needing to support a birth announcement address which HA could NOT find any facts to substantiate but decided “must be true”, on the basis of absolutely nothing craftily “moved” Stanley Armour and Madelyn Dunham out to 6085 Kalanianaole before 1961 (HA: “She and her parents, Kansas couple Stan Dunham, a furniture store operator, and Madelyn Dunham (“Toot,” to Obama), a bank cashier, had come to Hawai’i in 1960 and moved into the Kalaniana’ole location”), which is both highly improbable and at odds with the evidence. This “adaption” required the previously established Kamhehameha Ave of pre-1963 to be edited out of the newspaper’s reality. The HA’s “adapted story”, and new parallel world, has the Dunham’s remaining out at Kalanianaole with Ann and Jr until 1963, when the grandparents move into a small downscale apartment (1427 Alexander), while daughter and grandson set up in their own large family size house (2277 Kamhehameha): all of which crashes on the high improbability of the Duham’s financing these arrangements and incontrovertible evidence that Ann Dunham was living in Washington state within three weeks of her son’s birth and stayed at least a year. So much for HA’s “facts”. Submitting as evidence “facts” which sharply diverge from a reasonable, coherent, and meaningful pattern of knowledge and probabilities permits the rescue of any story, however bizarre, from Bigfoot to “faked” moon landings. It’s colloquially known as “having an answer for everything” and always seeks to avoid critical test. Example:
“[At X’s] double murder trial…[A] identified several crime-scene prints in blood as having been made by a pair of size twelve Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes, luxury footwear made in Italy. [A’s] testimony tended to incriminate [X] in two ways: the identification involved a relatively small footwear group, and [X], after denying that he owned Bruno Magli shoes, was seen in a television clip wearing a pair. The shoes that made the bloody prints were never located.” [Forensics under Fire, Jim Fisher, 2008]
If the evidence here conformed to a reasonable, coherent, and meaningful pattern of probabilities (admissible evidence=preponderance) then X would not have lied about owning, hiring, or borrowing a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, X would have had in his possession a similar pair of Bruce Magli shoes available for critical test and elimination (or would have provided a credible account for why he no longer had them), otherwise we would expect the shoes to be missing to support X’s lie.
If the evidence against X were DEFLECTED we would see offered as “facts” improbabilities diverging from a coherent, meaningful pattern and unsubstantiated by evidence: the shoes seen on TV were borrowed from a friend “who died last week, he was buried in them”, were hired from “can’t remember who”, were stolen, or were “given away” to a vagrant. Whatever. Just like HA’s parallel world: not persuasive.
“Did it take a full 19 days to write all that stuff?” Expelliarmus
My family and I suffered a loss which left us hurting, in tears, and otherwise engaged. I was going to refer to it because I knew that a personalizing jibe (one not even reaching the low level of ad hominem) might be thrown into my face, but on reflection I was prepared to trust to readers’ honor. It is a pity and no comfort that Expelliarmus lived down to my expectations.
“I have neither the time nor patience…convoluted…so I won’t bother with a response.” Expelliarmus
Expelliarmus refusing to consider the evidence is not entirely novel nor unforeseen, and no response may be interpreted by some as concession. For instance, Arthur Schopenhauer (a titan of 19th-century German philosophy) in The Art of Controversy, Stratagem #31:
“If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you may by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge. Example: ‘What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.’ In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.”
Nor limited to Expelliarmus it seems. Then again, it is not Expelliarmus who is turning lack of evidence one way or another into something more and calls it deliberate.
Other than quoting philosophers, do you have anything to contribute or is it going to continue with unsupported assertions?
Just curious
“b A genuine birth record address usually has facts or evidence to support it; an address with no facts or evidence to support it is usually false”
In a logical argument like that in order to have confidence in the conclusion, you have to have confidence in the premises. Premise “b” and “c” are suppositions, not facts. Given that Obama was a nobody when he was born 47 years ago, and the principles have died, the absence of facts is not particularly meaningful. A questionable premise leads to a questionable conclusion.
You can’t turn a supposition into a fact, no matter how you massage it with truth tables.
WAYK: What “facts” ?
The birth announcement in two newspapers is a fact. It is what we call in the trade, “evidence”.
“…you still haven’t given a reason for Stanley Ann Obama to have given a false address.” Dr Conspiracy
Unlike Dr Conspiracy I don’t assume that “Stanley Ann Obama” was the birth informant who gave the false address, and without the original record we don’t know who that was, but the accidental exposure of a highly-probable-lie via the birth announcements is sufficient by itself. Given the address was in high probability false then under the Rules of Evidence the prima facie presumption (again: the presumption) attaching to Obama Jr’s paper COLB is rebuttable on the basis of ANY evidence; more precisely and officially, on the basis of evidence somewhere between one scintilla and less than a preponderance. A false address, being more than a scintilla (“a tiny or scarcely detectable amount”) of evidence, strips Obama’s paper COLB of its prima facie status; factor in the COLB’s three additional inadequacies under the Rules of Evidence, with discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the inference to be drawn (eg by a court) is obvious.
There is nothing to fear from rational, objective analysis and critical test (eg the Aztec gods demand the living hearts of victims to fructify the earth) unless there is something to hide (the Aztec gods don’t exist or don’t care).
You still haven’t given a reason for ANYBODY to have given a false address.
But how can a false address strip a document of its prima facie status, when that document doesn’t contain the address? OOPS!
And a “scintilla” of evidence does not strip a document of its prima facie status. To overcome prima facie evidence, it must be rebutted, and there is nothing that can rebut the COLB. The burden of proof is on the one who rebuts the evidence. To rebut the COLB, you would have to provide compelling evidence that the President’s father was not Barack Obama, or that he was not born in Honolulu or that the date was wrong, or that his mother was someone else. You cannot do that; there is no evidence for any of that. As the days go by, we fill in the holes one by one. First we had the COLB, then confirmation from the Hawaii Department of Health. Now we have contemporary birth announcements, and celebration of Obama’s birth by the hospital where he was born.
When the facts don’t match, the concept that one adjust the story may seem somewhat foreign to you but that’s how real journalists work.
1 Unless I’m mistaken this must mean that NBC didn’t try the exercise, because no result is stated, and that speaks for itself. ROTFL anyway you read it.
2 “…the simple fact remains that Obama was born in Honolulu…” NBC
a There is not a single document in the public domain which establishes any fact about where Obama Jr was born: dubious online images are inadmissible and prove nothing. Obama posting images of a claim to be King of England would have the same force ie none. Wherever NBC got his simple “fact” from, that so-called “fact” has no legal standing or force, and no amount of huffing and puffing will make that “fact” come true or lend it any legal standing or force. Try again.
b The issue in dispute is the probity and sufficiency under the Rules of Evidence of any paper COLB that Obama may produce. Given above are FOUR reasons why an Obama Jr as-yet-unproduced paper COLB will never satisfy the Rules of Evidence. Not one of them was Obama Jr not “being born in Honolulu”. Try again.
1 “…what we call in the trade, ‘evidence’. ” Dr Conspiracy
In the trade of law “evidence” when omitted is considered lying, when inconsistent is essentially worthless, and when improbable is generally disregarded: the Honolulu Advertiser managed to “achieve” all three in a single “adapted” story.
In the trade of serious journalism “evidence” must have two independent sources: the second independent source for the Dunhams living at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway is….?
2 Stack and Sway: The New Science of Jury Consulting, Dorit F. Kressel, 2004, referring to the case of [X] as above:
[Quote] “By far the most important thing we learned…was that among [X’s] supporters, the depth and strength of support for him overcame all rational considerations; it was mind-boggling…
We would say [to jurors in the mock trial,] if we had presented the following evidence to you: the murderer wore size-12 Bruno Magli shoes and this was established beyond dispute. [X] denied ever wearing size-12 Bruno Magli shoes. A photo which you can assume is accurate shows him wearing size-12 Bruno Magli shoes within months of the murder. Do you think that’s pretty decent evidence?
With barely a beat one woman supporter said, ‘No. Somebody could have stolen them from him.” [B] claims that many of [X’s] supporters possessed this type of rigid loyalty…The response was so irrational that the research taught him “that it was not possible to change their minds.” [End quote]
“Somebody could have stolen them from him.” Behind deflections of evidence is the ploy of requiring culpability or exculpation BEYOND ALL DOUBT, which is both impossible and irrational, and certainly has never been part of our justice system.
1 “Let’s explore Hawaiian law in some detail” NBC
The law that NBC cites is CURRENT Hawaii law, not the law as applied in Hawaii in 1961, which was different. Over to NBC.
2 Given that it can be confidently stated that NBC is quite unable to DEMONSTRATE that the type of birth record ORIGINALLY used to register Obama Jr’s birth, or the identity of the informant, or the information it contains is entirely consistent with what NBC imagines it contains (or what an inadmissible and extremely dubious online COLB image has persuaded him it contains), it is therefore indisputable that we do not have access to ALL the evidence or the BEST evidence and should this remain the case (even IF Obama produces a bona fide paper COLB) then only a critical test (eg court hearing) will resolve the issue.
A critical test is exactly what NBC’s arguments are designed to avoid.
Already committed to an outcome as NBC is, and knowing that any argument that NBC offers will never or could ever resolve the issue, we can only conclude that NBC argues in bad faith and prejudices the truth; which is to say, NBC is not open to the facts, evidence, or truth but has the sole intent and purpose of concealing the evidence and the truth. NBC can undermine this conclusion very simply and powerfully by allowing that he is open to a resolution of the issue by way of a critical test of the probity of Obama’s COLB. To say this is unlikely to happen… understates the understatement. Consequently, the inference to be made is ridiculously easy and clear: something is feared, and that creates prejudice.
“It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.” Twelve Angry Men: Juror 8 (Henry Fonda)
“…the BEST AVAILABLE form of proof.” Expelliarmus
1 The BEST AVAILABLE form of proof would be the pre-COLB pre-2001 long form Birth Certificate(s) that Obama Jr has claimed to possess and must have used before COLBs came into existence in November 2001, or a long form Birth Certificate still easily available on request from Hawaii DoH when the “Reason for Request” box is completed: something like “Proof of Presidential Eligibility” should do it.
2 The “presumption” attaching to prima facie evidence derives from the meaning of the verb “presume”: an assumption, supposition, or guess absent indications to the contrary; going outside proper limits. (For example, the presumption of innocence goes outside the proper limit of reason in that some defendants will be guilty.) The evidence “beyond a scintilla” and “less than a preponderance” required to provide indications contrary to a “legal or artificial presumption” (that is, an assumption etc outside proper limits not based on probable reasoning) must be more than a surmise and have SOME reasonable basis for differing logical conclusions about a vital fact.
The argument against the prima facie presumption of any paper COLB that Obama Jr may produce is based on the Rules of Evidence, is more than a surmise or inconclusive inference (because a. the Dunhams have a history of deception, b. no one can demonstrate the type of birth record from which the COLB derives, c. the birth record contains false information), and therefore is robust and valid until disproved by critical test.
Even the strongest case put by the greatest mind can be wrong, as Einstein was over quantum physics, but what will PROVE him wrong ? A critical test (eg Bell’s Theorem), when conducted by international researchers, proved Einstein wrong and opened up new fields of inquiry and knowledge. The critical testing of claims is the bedrock of our civilization.
Getting to a critical test (eg court hearing) is a catastrophe that Obama, his attorneys, and loyalists are strenuously determined to avoid.
The only comparison which can be made is with true-believers who would persuade us that a propitiated Wiccan Goddess will save the earth, that NASA moon landings were faked, or that Bigfoot stealthily inhabits our forests. Accepted standards of logic, evidence, inquiry, and critical test are deflected and shunned by these zealots also, for such tools expose their obfuscations and mystifications as the delusions they most certainly are.
Simply: without critical test the remaining options are authority or cult, unquestioned or unquestionable.
Obama never “claimed to possess” the original “long form” COLB. He wrote that he discovered an article about his father, “folded away among” his birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when he was in high school. Therefore the article must have been found in either his mother’s or grandparents home. The book does not detail what type of birth certificate it was (that is, we don’t know that it was “official”, or that it was a certified copy) — nor does it say that Obama took or kept the birth certificate. If he was rummaging through his mother’s records, there is no reason to assume that he took possession of the document in any case. (When I was a kid and used to rummage through my mom’s paperwork, I usually was very careful to put everything back exactly the way I had found it.)
Assuming that the paperwork remained with his mother, and with the historical record that his mother moved & traveled subsequent to that time, there is no reason to suppose that the document would be retrievable later on.
Like Obama, I am the offspring of a long-deceased parent. If I wanted a copy of my birth certificate, I’d contact the state that issued it and request a certified copy. That’s what Obama did.
The Hawaii Dept. of Health says otherwise — they say they do NOT provide anything other than the standard short-form birth certificate.
It is only one more piece of birther lore to assume that another document could currently be obtained, despite all evidence to the contrary.
But there is: First of all there is the COLB which shows Obama born in Honolulu. In fact, the document is admissible evidence per court rules. Furthermore, there are two birth announcements which mention the birth of Barack Obama.
As such there are documents which show that he was born in the US. On the other side, there are NO documents which show Obama not born in the US.
Since the COLB is Prima Facie legal evidence and since it contains the requisite signature and seal, it is admissible in court.
Sorry my friend but you are wrong.
WAYK, Suppose Obama had posted a COLB that said he was born in Washington state (when this wasn’t really the case). Are you seriously suggesting that he could get away with it? Would state officials in Washington state say Obama’s birth was registered in Washington? Or would they say that the document was a fraud?
Denying the COLB is not rational.
WAYK says: “in the trade of law “evidence” when omitted is considered lying”
Please provide citation as to this legal concept.
WAYK: The law that NBC cites is CURRENT Hawaii law, not the law as applied in Hawaii in 1961, which was different. Over to NBC.
Exactly which law are you talking about, what evidence do you have to support the assertion, and what difference does it make?
WAYK: a long form Birth Certificate still easily available on request from Hawaii DoH when the “Reason for Request” box is completed: something like “Proof of Presidential Eligibility” should do it.
That is not a valid reason, as the COLB is proof of place of birth and date. You make a big deal of your supposed contradictions in the Mother’s residence, which if true (which I doubt) impugns the long form equally with the short form. Hence, by your argument, the long form is not valid proof either. So why ask for it?
Simple: one can create suspicion for asking for any document one doesn’t have.
Evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii:
1. Both of Barack Obama’s parents were residents of Hawaii around the time of the President’s birth.
2. The Kapi’olani medical center in Honolulu last January during their centennial celebrated the fact that Obama was born in their hospital.
3. A birth certificate from Hawaii has been published, along with an examination of it by an independent fact checking organization.
4. The Director of the Hawaii department has issued a statement, posted on the State Health Department web site, that she and the head of vital statistics for the state have personally verified that the President’s birth is registered in Hawaii according to regulation.
5. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother is on tape as saying that her grandson was born in Hawaii where her son was staying.
6. Two independent Honolulu newspapers published the President’s birth announcement.
7. The President of the United States says he was born in Hawaii
8. A contemporary of Obama’s from Hawaii remembers a local doctor commenting on the strange name of Obama’s mother and the unusual name of “Barack Obama”
Evidence that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii:
(none)
Conclusion:
President Obama was born in Hawaii
When I was a kid, I rummaged through my parent’s papers and found my hospital-issued souvenir birth certificate. I have no idea where it is today.
Of course it is not rational to deny the COLB which is legally admisible because it was signed and had a seal.
In addition the two birth announcements further support the facts.
On the other side, WAYK has nothing to support his imagination
No evidence of lying or inconsistencies have been provided other than a minor mystery.
In fact, contrary to the rules of evidence, the COLB is legally admissible evidence, prima facie even, in the court since it has the required signature and seal.
Them are the simple facts.
In fact the COLB, with the seal and signature, makes it admissible per the rules of the court.
Are you even familiar with the rules of evidence?
Thought so
Just for quick reference, a paper COLB (bearing the raised seal & signature) is admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(9):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm (emphasis added)
Real facts just make me tingle!
Well done Expeliarmus. Yes, of course these official documents once properly certified are admissible in court.
WAYK seems to have no understanding of the issues of law or the rules of law involved. As such he seems to be quite similar to Orly who seems to be going ‘all over the place’ with her ‘arguments’, in the hope that something may stick. Even Inhofe’s people want to see real evidence, not just hear-say before they touch the case…
Inhofe’s office wants to see the numbered State Dept travel warning. And Pakistan’s travel ban. And the Indonesian law that says only Indonesian citizens can be registered in school, and Orly has a post asking people to look for them! Seems to me she is admitting she does not have the evidence to support her accusations! Oh wait, Berg has it! So she’s also admitting she plagiarized her cases from Berg? How long until her followers put it together? I bet she says she was planning to get that in discovery. Are State Dept records sealed now too? And Indonesian law books? Birther duplicity unraveling. Yummy
1 NBC must be thanked and respected for submitting NBC’s hermeneutics to a critical test.
Two Dunham homes were mentioned in the August 23, 2008 Honolulu Advertiser article: first, “a large house on KA”, second, “the apartment on Beretania”. Applying NBC’s principle of taking all statements about the Dunhams or Obamas published in the Honolulu Advertiser quite LITERALLY and without analysis (as NBC applies it to the subsequent November 9 story: for example and literally, the Dunhams and Obamas occupied 6085 Kalaniana’ole from 1960; literally, the Dunhams moved into 1427 Alexander in 1963, and literally, UH records show Ann Dunham relocating to 2277 Kamehameha in 1963), and exclusively using NBC’s principle and no other, then… the Dunham’s first home in Hawaii was 2277 Kamehameha. If NBC finds this interpretation too constrictive then he is experiencing the limitations that others see in his methodology; if NBC wants the scope to go beyond a literal reading of the earlier August 23 article then a comparable latitude must apply to the later November 9 article; if we are on principle never to go beyond a literal reading, or only selectively, then we do not possess the tools to resolve the Honolulu Advertiser’s inconsistencies and must look elsewhere for guidance. In any case, unless self-contradiction is permissible, NBC’s hermeneutics fails this critical test.
2 NBC’s apostolate (which maintains there is no need for a critical test of any Obama Jr COLB) promotes, and at risk of collapse depends upon, the belief that the address “6085 Kalanianaole Highway” entered into the Obama Jr’s birth record as the “Mother’s Address” is legitimate. The truth is that actual address(es) for the Dunhams on August 1, 1961 or prior make no difference to the loss of prima facie status for Obama Jr’s COLB because it WAS undeniably “6085 Kalanianaole Highway” that was deliberately (“after careful thought and weighing of the consequences”) entered into Obama Jr’s birth record, and this address has been demonstrated (with near certainty) to be a lie. Unless NBC has evidence to the contrary, Kalanianaole Highway as a false address is a massive obstacle that NBC and friends will never surmount. NBC just doesn’t have any facts to knit Kalanianaole Highway into a coherent and persuasive argument: that’s NBC’s problem. My precise argument is that Kalanianaole can NEVER be knitted into a coherent and persuasive argument and here’s all the evidence I need to prove that: there is NO evidence (apart from the claim in the original 1961 birth record) that Ann Dunham, her parents, Obama Sr or Obama Jr ever lived at “6085 Kalanianaole Highway” for one day, never mind four years.
The best that NBC can do is make statements of faith which have negligible evidential basis (eg about where Obama Jr was born) that are not susceptible to critical test. They are not a NBC “argument”, rather they’re a very big NBC problem. NBC’s problem is my argument; but my problem is not NBC’s “argument”, because there is no argument from NBC.
NBC’s best “argument” (which is merely a deflection of the evidence), that “…the simple fact remains that Obama was born in Honolulu…” is based so it seems on Obama’s and his sister’s claims. This “argument” unfortunately is in the same category as the “argument” that Obama was a British citizen by descent at birth: “Obama admitted it” at his website ! Surely NBC doesn’t have to be shown the flaw in these two, similar “arguments” and the ignominy of the association ?
“First of all there is the COLB…” Online images of a COLB, dubious and otherwise, are not admissible in any court and are equivalent to a faery tale. NBC’s loyalty to those online images is most touching but in no way cognizant of how courts would treat such artifacts: with utter contempt.
“Furthermore, there are two birth announcements…” Thanks: those announcements are central to my argument. NBC surely must be aware that the newspaper birth announcements contain no information as to Obama Jr’s place of birth (eg hospital), contain no information as to the type of record which registered Jr’s birth, and contain (to a near certainty) false information. Given these limitations it would seem impossible for NBC to weave these announcements into an argument which forfends critical test. Conversely the announcements snap into my argument very neatly.
“Since the COLB is Prima Facie legal evidence… ” NBC’s loyalty is only exceeded by his tenacity against the odds. Under the Rules of Evidence [301] a prima facie presumption is rebutted with minimal evidence: multiple Dunham family deceptions (for example, the lie about her residency period in Ann’s “divorce” proceedings); the type of birth record for Jr being unknown; and the false “Mother’s Address” together meet that minimal standard. NBC has presented no coherent and persuasive case to defeat this rebutting evidence: it is to be wondered whether NBC ever will, but the invitation is made. NBC is further invited to demonstrate using an argument, not unsubstantiated claim or wishful thinking, why the other three deficiencies under the Rules of Evidence (COLB not a true duplicate [1001 and 1003], not best evidence [1002], not complete [106]) also do not undermine an as-yet-unproduced COLB presuming to be prima facie evidence. NBC has to do better than repeating and repeating the same unargued statements; certainly Obama’s attorneys would have to do very much better than NBC to prevent his COLB suffering a critical test.
It doesn’t MATTER where Obama’s mother lived.
It matters where Obama is born. The birth certificate is evidence of time and place of birth, nothing else.
Why do you keep dwelling on this totally IRRELEVANT collateral detail?
So tell me, WAYK, I notice that you place considerable reliance on one biography of Barack Obama. Where does that biographer conclude, after all his study and family interviews, that Barack Obama was born?
Where do YOU think Barack Obama was born, and why do you think that?
WAYK is a dishonest reporter of his opponent’s position. While WAYK has presented no evidence (nor any argument) that President Obama was NOT born in Hawaii (the fact that no such evidence exists is at least suggestive that it is not true), there are several reasons to conclude that he was, specifically:
1. Both of Barack Obama’s parents were residents of Hawaii around the time of the President’s birth.
2. The Kapi’olani medical center in Honolulu last January during their centennial celebrated the fact that Obama was born in their hospital.
3. A birth certificate from Hawaii has been published, along with an examination of it by an independent fact checking organization.
4. The Director of the Hawaii department has issued a statement, posted on the State Health Department web site, that she and the head of vital statistics for the state have personally verified that the President’s birth is registered in Hawaii according to regulation.
5. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother is on tape as saying that her grandson was born in Hawaii where her son was staying.
6. Two independent Honolulu newspapers published the President’s birth announcement.
7. The President of the United States says he was born in Hawaii
8. A contemporary of Obama’s from Hawaii remembers a local doctor commenting on the strange name of Obama’s mother and the unusual name of “Barack Obama”
WAYK’s idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules of evidence gives him, he thinks, license to brush these away, but that wouldn’t fly in a fair hearing of the facts.
The number of those who doubt Obama’s birth in Hawaii is not known. Gibbs mentions, I think in jest, 400,000. What I have found on other forums, like MySpace, is that those who hold such doubts are hugely misinformed about the facts (believing, for example, that two forensic experts have declared the COLB a forgery, or believing that Barack Obama’s grandmother said on tape that she held Barack Obama’s mother’s hand during his birth in a Mombasa hospital). WAYK is perhaps 100 times better informed than the average birther, and so his erroneous conclusions are less to be excused.
Based on the evidence, which is a COLB, Obama was indeed born on US soil. That is all that is needed to establish natural born status.
Anything else is irrelevant speculation about where the Dunhams and the Obama’s lived.
That a newspaper revised its story is hardly evidence of much.
Surely WAYK understands the differences between a newspaper article (hearsay at best) with a properly signed certification of live birth with the proper seal?
Ann Dunham returns to Hawaii and moves into 2277 Kamehameha. Dunham’s first home according to the known facts would be the one mentioned in the birth announcement.
There is nothing dubious about the scans and photographs of a legally admissible document. It’s not my loyalty to the documents but the simple fact that WAYK is trying to dismiss the document as irrelevant even though it is legally admissible in court.
The suggestion that the courts would treat the duly signed COLB with contempt is thus wishful thinking on the part of WAYK who seems to place more emphasis on wishful thinking than factual data.
“Ann Dunham returns to Hawaii and moves into 2277 Kamehameha. Dunham’s first home according to the known facts would be the one mentioned in the birth announcement.” NBC
“”Ann Dunham returns to Hawaii…” . NBC believes the Honolulu Advertiser story to be literally true: that Ann Dunham’s first home in Hawaii was 6085 Kalanianaole Highway and that Ann Dunham moved into 2277 Kamehameha in 1963. NBC also concedes that Ann Dunham “moved into 2277 Kamehameha” in 1963 “on return from Washington”, but Ann Dunham’s absence and return is a fact NOT FOUND in the Honolulu Advertiser story. Unfortunately for the Honolulu Advertiser we have solid evidence (discovered before the HA story and acknowledged by NBC) that Ann Dunham was living in Washington state within three weeks of her son’s birth.
So which is it: the Honolulu Advertiser story is true in all its details or the Honolulu Advertiser is distorting the truth ? If the Honolulu Advertiser is distorting the truth how can the Honolulu Advertiser story be trusted in all its details ? If the Honolulu Advertiser story cannot be trusted, why would anyone quote it as a reliable source ? It goes beyond logic.
“It doesn’t MATTER where Obama’s mother lived…It matters where Obama is born…nothing else. Why do you keep dwelling on this totally IRRELEVANT collateral detail?” Expelliarmus
” ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having ANY tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Federal Rules of Evidence: 401. [emphasis applied]
“…an evidentiary fact is relevant or potentially relevant to a probandum (i.e. a fact to be proved), whether intermediate or ultimate, if it has SOME connection with it – the test is: does it tend to support (or negate) the probandum AT ALL?” Rethinking Evidence, William L. Twining, 2006. [emphasis applied]
“All that is required for an item of evidence to be relevant is that it should have SOME tendency in logic and common sense to advance (or defeat) the proposition in issue.” Practical Guide To Evidence, Christopher Allen, 2008. [emphasis applied]
Nobody knows where Ann Dunham was living in the summer of 1961. The only address we have for Ann Dunham that summer, at the time of her son’s birth, as published in the newspaper birth announcements and derived from the original birth record, is (with near certainty) a lie. If we don’t know where Ann Dunham lived, we don’t know where Obama Jr was born. If the place given as Ann Dunham’s address at the time of Obama Jr’s birth was a lie, and we don’t know which type of record was used to register Obama Jr’s birth (as is currently the case), then the place claimed for Jr’s birth has an equal probability of being a lie.
For the “Mother’s Address” on the original birth record to be irrelevant and collateral, and for the COLB’s presumption not to fail, the following conclusion drawn from the following facts must be incontrovertibly true under all circumstances:
Facts: Even accepting that we have no established knowledge of where Ann Dunham was in the summer of 1961; even accepting that Ann Dunham was living in an unknown place which was not the address falsely given in the original birth record; even accepting that the Dunham family deliberately misled outsiders about Ann’s relocation to Hawaii in 1961 and about the non-existence of an Obama “marriage” and “family” prior to Obama Sr’s departure for Harvard in 1962; even accepting that Ann Dunham lied about her fulfillment of the required period of Hawaii residency in her “divorce” proceedings and legal documents; even accepting that we do not know the identity of the informant of Obama Jr’s birth in 1961; and even accepting we do not know which type of registration for Obama was submitted to Hawaii authorities in 1961…
The only conclusion must be: it is impossible to explain these facts logically in any way other than Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Again: for the “Mother’s Address” to be irrelevant and collateral, these facts must be IMPOSSIBLE to explain in any other way.
However it defies all reason and common-sense to believe that NO OTHER POSSIBLE conclusion can be drawn from these facts. As another conclusion can be logically drawn, then a logical and sufficient basis exists (under Rule of Evidence 301) to rebut the PRESUMPTION that what Obama’s COLB (if it is ever produced) purports is the truth. Please remember, nothing is established by the simple retort: “Nah, of course it’s impossible !” It has to be demonstrated with a cogent argument, in accord with Rule of Evidence 301, that it is LOGICALLY impossible for any alternative conclusion to be drawn, otherwise the COLB’s presumption is rebutted and fails. Given this cannot be done (and good luck to those who try !), therefore:
The false address in Obama Jr’s original birth record IS VERY RELEVANT to (and in high probability changes) the facts of this case. Quod erat demonstrandum.
“WAYK has presented no evidence (nor any argument) that President Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.” Dr Conspiracy
This is what is known as the “straw-man” fallacy. WAYK has not attempted to present such an argument as claimed. My posts here discuss the Dunham family, their lies and deceptions, and the implications for the probity of any Obama COLB.
Being Logical: A Guide To Good Thinking, D. Q. Mclnerny, 2004:
“The Straw-Man Fallacy… If, in responding to an argument, I deliberately distort it so as to weaken it, then I commit the “straw-man fallacy.”
The image tells the story: A straw man [as a physical object] is easy to deal with, a pushover. The commission of the fallacy is a dishonest mistake because it is the deliberate distortion of another’s argument.”
Thought and Knowledge : An Introduction To Critical Thinking, Diane F. Halpern:
“[Straw man] A type of propaganda technique in which an opponent to a conclusion distorts the argument that supports the conclusion by substituting [what he believes to be] a weaker argument.”
Good Reasoning Matters! : A Constructive Approach To Critical Thinking, Leo A. Groarke and Christopher W. Tindale, 2004:
“Arguments of this sort are called ‘straw-man’ arguments because they attack a fake opponent rather than a real one. They do so by attributing to a real opponent a position they do not really hold…A [straw-man] argument is always a misrepresentation of a position, usually [what is believed to be] a weakened account of it.”
To dispose of Dr C’s case point by point for Obama Jr being born in Hawaii (but NOT an argument by WAYK that Obama was not born in Hawaii):
1. Our good Dr Conspiracy can not be serious. Ann Dunham and Obama Sr were living in Hawaii sometime during 1961: but there is NO evidence indicating where both were living in the summer of 1961. If Dr C has such evidence the world wants to know.
2. Our good Dr C can not be serious. Obama Jr recently sent a letter to Kapi’olani (read by Neil Abercrombie) claiming he was born there. That is all. Under privacy legislation Kapi’olani Medical Center is unable to comment (or embarrass) until and unless Obama permits the release of whatever records remain in Kapi’olani archives (if any). Given that Obama and family have made prior inconsistent statements about which Honolulu hospital he was born in, without further evidence, statements by others that Obama was born in Kapi’olani are statements of faith, not fact.
3. Our good Dr C can not be serious. a) Online images are inadmissible and worthless in court. b) An unsubstantiated examination by two young, unqualified researchers is convincing only for true believers. c) When called nobody at Obama HQ will say they’ve seen the paper COLB. d) The FactCheck photographs are not congruent: this photo http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-wSeal has a visible seal and this photo http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal has no visible seal. Maybe FactCheck were photographing the same object, but if this is the best that the organization Dr C is relying on can do, their efforts are jaw-droppingly less than professional and eye-rollingly less than persuasive. Who would allow themselves to be persuaded by virtual kids who don’t have a clue what they’re doing ? Anyhow, why just two junior researchers ? Why not fifty seasoned professionals ? Why not fifty photographs ? Why not a professional photographer in a studio ? Why not fifty photographs each from fifty professionals ? Why not a video ? Fifty videos ? With nearly a billion to spend how could the Obama campaign be so incompetent ? Is it surprising there are those who see method in this madness ?
4. Our good Dr C can not be serious. The Hawaii DoH statement says absolutely nothing specific for two reasons: a) it is against the law for Hawaii authorities to put in the public domain, without permission, any information contained in birth records, and b) the language of the Hawaii DoH statement diplomatically gave no indication as to what TYPE of record was used to register Obama Jr’s birth.
5. Our good Dr C can not be serious: there are all kinds of tapes and claims of tapes swilling around cyberspace. Real tapes, alleged tapes, tapes going one way or the other: all have zero credibility.
6. Our good Dr C cannot be serious. The newspaper birth announcements lack vital information to resolve crucial questions and indeed they contain a shocking lie: the address given was false. Neither the Dunhams nor the Obamas ever lived there and the implications are devastating. It’s not a lie because WAYK wants it to be a lie: it’s a lie because no matter how hard WAYK tries it can’t be made into a truth unless WAYK engages in self-deception and becomes a true believer.
7. Our good Dr C can not be serious. Presidents LIE. And keep LYING to cover up the LIES. Bush about WMD in Iraq ? Clinton about Lewinski ? This isn’t a banana or bamboo republic where we are brainwashed to believe our dear leaders are sinless demigods. OUR system doesn’t succeed unless the people are critical of power and relentless in pursuit of truth. The truth about Presidents. That’s the people’s duty. Our duty..
8. Our good Dr C cannot be serious. Barbara Nelson, the single source for the story cited from The Buffalo News, offered an account that was not checked or second-sourced by the reporter. As an ex-teacher at Obama Jr’s elite private school in Hawaii, and who adorned Jr with a lei at his graduation, Nelson can hardly be described as credibly neutral, and the incident described (what an anonymous someone told someone else over the telephone who then told Barbara Nelson one afternoon in 1961 is far beneath any serious consideration: but not for Dr Conspiracy. In which case, on the basis that Dr C proposes that a single-source story is reliable, probative, and to be believed literally, surely Dr C would believe, just as literally, the account of a woman (Eleanor Nordyke) who gave birth in Kapi’olani Medical Center on August 5, 1961 and does not remember Ann Dunham being there ? Especially when Eleanor’s husband Dr Nordyke worked out on Kalanianaole Highway (7192, Straub Clinic), both womens’ children went to the same schools (Noelani and Punahou), and both women were later colleagues at UH East-West Center ? In high probability Dr C will not believe Nordyke’s story literally and uncritically (even though Nordyke is not retailing third-hand information). However all the same objections apply to Nelson’s tale as much as Nordyke’s, if we are being rational, consistent, and fair.
“WAYK’s idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules of evidence…” Dr Conspiracy
As written earlier by WAYK: “…a prima facie presumption is rebutted with minimal evidence… [ ] has presented no coherent and persuasive case to defeat this rebutting evidence…the invitation is made [to defeat the rebuttal]…. [ ] is further invited to demonstrate…why the other three deficiencies…also do not undermine an as-yet-unproduced COLB presuming to be prima facie evidence.”
If our good Dr C wishes to correct the “idiosyncrasies” of “WAYK’s interpretation” this invitation is extended….
“WAYK [‘s] erroneous conclusions are less to be excused.” Dr Conspiracy
In relation to me our good Dr C throws out a lot of names and insinuations about matters which have no connection to me. My posts here discuss the Dunham family, their lies and deceptions, and the implications for the probity of any Obama COLB that may be produced, concerning which I will retract anything shown to be improbable or inconsistent. We have yet to see others write the same. Our good Dr C can be assured I am sensitive but forgiving: we all make mistakes, assuming that’s what it was. Otherwise it’s the logical fallacy of the “Undistributed Middle Term”, more colloquially and less pleasantly known as “Guilt By Association”.
“Where do YOU think Barack Obama was born, and why do you think that?” Dr Conspiracy
Find the how and you have the why.
“…the scans and photographs of a legally admissible document.” NBC
Somebody steals the Mona Lisa and the Mona Lisa is discreetly available but you can’t see it. Who will buy a Mona Lisa on the strength of a scan or photograph ? Nobody is that stupid, are they ? Anyhow, the “document” NBC refers to has all the elusive and tricky reality (legal or actual) of a leprchaun’s promise. Maybe NBC believes in leprachauns too. I will only believe in leprachauns when I have one by his Kelly-green coattails.
“The suggestion that the courts would treat the duly signed COLB with contempt…” NBC
WAYK wrote: “ONLINE IMAGES…courts would treat such artifacts…with utter contempt.”
Again: ONLINE IMAGES. Any other distorted and nonsensical suggestion is of NBC’s own imagining. Again: ONLINE IMAGES. Any other distorted and nonsensical suggestion is of NBC’s own imagining.
As NBC only seems to deal in repetition: ONLINE IMAGES. Any other distorted and nonsensical suggestion is of NBC’s own imagining.
Clear enough ?
“Based on the evidence, which is a COLB…” NBC
Heroic repetition of nonsense doesn’t make nonsense believable except for true believers.
The words “evidence” and “Obama’s COLB” cannot be used right now in the same sentence except conjecturally. Only a paper COLB qualifies as evidence. The word “evidence” connotes the word “hypothesis” and “hypothesis” connotes “disproof” which connotes “critical test”. The place to critically test COLBs and incontrovertibly establish them as proven evidence is a court of law.
We can assume with a high probability of being correct that when NBC uses the word “evidence” the words “critical test” and “court of law” will not appear in the same thought or sentence.
You mean the paper one which was scanned and photographed? Yes, we agree, that is the evidence that would be submitted to court to show that President Obama was born on US soil.
Your attempt to confuse the matters is duly noted and has to be rejected.
A COLB introduced in court is admissible evidence and if the opposing party wants to challenge it, it has to provide compelling reasons as to why.
Since all that is needed to establish natural born status is the location of birth, the COLB, which was signed and had the raised seal is evidence that disproves the thesis proposed.
Perhaps if WAYK familiarizes himself with the rules of evidence. Such would significantly benefit his arguments (sic)
It’s important not to conflate “evidence” in the sense of an Internet debate (which this is) and “evidence” in the context of a judicial proceeding. The Internet will never have a paper anything. For the purpose of Internet debate, the COLB is “best evidence” and particularly compelling.
Are you are really putting forth an argument based on the absence of a piece of paper in an all-electronic network? That’s what it sounds like.
None of the cases that have been filed will ever see discovery in a court room, so all you have there is an opportunity to exercise your imagination.
Seems that WAYK agrees with my scenario. Dunham’s absence may not be found in the story, but also does not contradict the story. As I said, the facts support best my statements. If that is problematic to WAYK, then I suggest he provides us with facts to support his case. Other than the absence of evidence, he has NOTHING to show.
Yes, Dunham moved to the state of Washington soon after Obama was born in Honolulu. Your point being?
WAYK, the COLB is prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only way it can be challenged is with strong, direct evidence that the document itself is fraudulent, or that Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii. Unless you have direct evidence showing that Dunham was living somewhere other than Hawaii at the time, her personal residence is irrelevant to the validity of the underlying birth certificate (which DOH officials have affirmed that they have in their possession.)
(If she was not living in Hawaii, then it might logically be assumed that her baby was born elsewhere as well; but a dispute over the residential address in Honolulu won’t negate the evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu — presumably no matter what part of town she lived in she would have ended up at one of a small number of maternity hospitals in the city).
You can go round and round and round with this, but the fact is that Dunham’s residential address at the time is totally irrelevant to the question of where Obama was born.
In other words, WAYK refuses, predictably, to answer the question.
Figures…
Lacking in facts, WAYK’s attempt to present his wishful speculation as factual is clearly countered by the known facts.
Useless comment.
WAYK: “Given that Obama and family have made prior inconsistent statements about which Honolulu hospital he was born in,”
Who and when?
On the strength of the electronic copy of the information, which is used to produce a COLB. The COLB which was photographed and scanned and was signed and had the requisite seal for it to be admissible evidence in a court of law.
ONLINE images support this interpretation. Going into court would merely mean that the same document or a new copy, will still show Obama born in the US.
Of courts will reject online images, but WAYK misleadingly represents this as if it were my argument.
Seems WAYK cannot debate in a mature and honest fashion. Given his wishful interpretations of the ‘facts’ I am not surprised that he has nothing better to argue.
Useless and yet of the same level of quality as most of WAYK’s contributions. Other than misrepresenting the facts or arguments, WAYK has little to show for himself.
That’s unfortunate but par for the course.
Again WAYK is repeating the lie that his family made conflicting statements as to where he was born.
Is it so hard for WAYK to do the necessary research?
No deceptions or lies have been shown by WAYK, only in his imagination which I admit is quite fertile but lacks much of any relationship with the reality
The implications for the probability of any Obama COLB do not depend on the veracity of his family’s statements. All that is needed is the COLB which shows him born in the US. If WAYK has any other evidence, then let him present it as any court of law would summarily rule in favor of Obama, if such a case ever were to make it to court. Of course, given the inability to gain standing and other legal complications, it seems unlikely that it will ever come to a court case.
But, unlike WAYK, the known facts are on our side.
WAYK is so reticent to commit himself, a straw man is all I have to address. I do find it ironic that WAYK has the audacity to trot out material on critical thinking, when the entirety of his presence here is an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy that says a premise is true because it hasn’t been proven false).
“The only way it [Obama’s COLB] can be challenged is with strong, direct evidence that the document itself is fraudulent, or that Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii.” Expelliarmus
“…strong, direct evidence” ? “…the document itself is fraudulent”? “…[show that] Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii” ? Given these are demonstrably conditions of Expelliarmus’s own devising, it is no wonder he finds himself “winning the argument” every time ! If Expelliarmus were to confine his opposition to recognized authorities as below (eg Thayer, Federal Rules and Courts, Mueller and Kirkpatrick etc etc), he would find himself boxing more than his own shadow, where the fix is already in.
(Quotes that follow from recognized legal authorities:) Given that the evidence (“ANY evidence”) is relevant (“having ANY PROBATIVE VALUE WHATSOEVER…no requirement that the evidence make the existence of the fact to be proved more probable than not or that it provide a sufficient basis for sending the issue to the jury”); and given that the relevant evidence allows for a logical conclusion which differs from the prima facie evidence only presumed (“an assumption, supposition, or guess ABSENT INDICATIONS TO THE CONTRARY; going outside proper limits”) probative; under the Federal Rules of Evidence these conditions “make the presumption INAPPLICABLE.”
This is how FRE 301 would operate against Obama’s COLB (if it exists).
To disprove this Expelliarmus must show that there has not been offered here ANY evidence against Obama’s supposed COLB; that the judicial system is wrong to maintain that it does not expect relevant evidence to make the existence of the fact to be proved more probable than not or that it provide a sufficient basis for sending the issue to the jury; and that it is impossible for any logical conclusions to be drawn from the evidence offered except that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
Unfortunately for Expelliarmus this cannot be done and here’s why: to argue that the evidence offered is irrelevant establishes SOME evidence has been offered; for Expelliarmus to dispute the alternative logical conclusions to the COLB’s about the circumstances of Obama Jr’s birth, drawn on the basis of supporting evidence offered, establishes the evidence offered as relevant.
“WAYK is so reticent to commit himself…” Dr C
The number, detail, and sincerity of my posts on the subject under discussion (whether the Dunhams and–or the Obamas ever really lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway and the implications for Obama’s COLB, if it exists) do not support a claim that WAYK is reticent etc on THESE matters. Dr C threw the curve ball of where Obama was born.
“WAYK has the audacity… the entirety of his presence here is an argument from ignorance…” Dr C
Good Reasoning Matters! : A Constructive Approach To Critical Thinking, Leo A. Groarke and Christopher W. Tindale, 2004:
“In essence, an argument from ignorance is a good argument when it is the result of a responsible attempt to garner evidence that confirms or disconfirms the claim in question. Accordingly, we define the scheme for good arguments from ignorance as follows: PREMISE 1: We have found no evidence to disprove (or prove) proposition P. PREMISE 2: There has been a responsible attempt to garner evidence. CONCLUSION: Proposition P is improbable (or probable). It is important to recognize that one can construct a strong argument from ignorance only after one has carefully looked for evidence to disprove or prove the proposition that appears in one’s conclusion.”
How then can Dr C’s accusations be true when: a) critical tests of WAYK’s hypotheses are constantly invited and indeed a method was provided for anyone seeking to disprove WAYK’s conclusion about 6085 Kalanianaole Highway for themselves; b) WAYK has been fastidious in using the terms “high probability” or “near certainty” for that conclusion; c) the suggestion that Obama’s COLB (online images or assumed paper) must be probative, because no one has provided particularly “compelling” reasons or evidence against it, is EXACTLY THE SAME LOGICAL FALLACY of arguing from ignorance that annoys Dr Conspiracy so much, and any attempt WAYK has made to advance matters beyond this ignorant fallacy is met with unargued derision and no attempt is ever made to investigate ideas contrary to solid groupthink; and d) the “entirety of WAYK’s presence here” also showed the apparently “inconsistent” but sincere “audacity” of inviting rebuttal of an alleged “idiosyncratic” interpretation of Rules of Evidence, which rebuttal has not been forthcoming.
As expected WAYK fails to present any reason why the COLB would not be accepted as admissible evidence in the Court
Since there is NO evidence that the document is fraudulent and in fact considerable evidence that it is not, I wonder how WAYK can believe that arguing that it is, without ANY evidence, would impress a judge.
There is no evidence similarly that a ‘false address’ was used in the birth certificate either. In fact, the address will be accepted as true unless it can be shown otherwise. Showing lack of recollection hardly is evidence of anything that happened almost 50 years ago.
In fact, all it takes is for President Obama to have a COLB sent directly to the Court which would show without any doubt that the President is a natural born, just like the COLB President Obama released for inspection.
The misguided beliefs that the Court will somehow reject an official document like a COLB without further evidence, is one of the reasons why legal challenges against President Obama have continued to fail. They lack merit, standing, judiciability or are moot. In some cases, they were even ruled to be in violation of rule 11.
Remember that under the Court rules it is not sufficient to argue that other explanations could exist but rather that the evidence provided by the COLB is to be admitted as true unless otherwise show false.
Until WAYK appreciates these legal details, he will continue to make his silly and yet totally unsupported assertions.
I guess everyone needs a hobby which allows his dreams to play out freely and it is a good outlet I guess to pretend to play an expert on these boards. However, as is often the case with dreams, they are seldomly in line with the reality and facts.
“For the purpose of Internet debate, the COLB is “best evidence” and particularly compelling…” Dr. Conspiracy
This is a novel, imaginative, and deft reconstruction of the term “best evidence” from Dr C but it has a terrible flaw: unlike the law and rational inquiry, internet debate has few rules, therefore I would not like to repeat what many on the internet have been “compelled” to say and do about online images of something nobody has ever seen except two true believers. There are many internet debates of other things that people have never seen except true believers (Bigfoot, subterranean UFO bases, Elvis still alive) but it was to be hoped that Dr C would live up to his name and mission to avoid his blog being classified with urban legends and faery tales. All very entertaining, but not serious.
Again, WAYK somewhat disingenuously presents his ignorance as evidence of something. Note that while the advertisements of Obama’s birth are valid evidence support the address of his parent(s), the failing recollection of someone 50 years after the fact, is at best hearsay and would fail to overcome the legal standards.
Similarly NO evidence of ANY lies by the Dunhams have been documented. At best they are insinuated based on a vivid imagination and lack of evidence and reason.
Note that WAYK has done nothing to reject Dr C’s position.
Typical and predictable
“Let’s assume for a moment that everything that Baro says about the interview is true (but not perhaps complete).”
..Just like your post on the Museum guard shooting, not complete? For the benefit of those on ONE side of the fence.
“A COLB introduced in court is admissible evidence and if the opposing party wants to challenge it, it has to provide compelling reasons as to why.” NBC
No “compelling reasons” are needed for a court to authorize the full evidentiary picture, merely the simple, uncontroversial, and routine application of the Rules of Evidence, on the basis that Obama’s COLB ( if it exists) is not a true duplicate of the original record (1001 and 1003), not complete (106), and not best evidence (1002). These Rules applied by a court would bring forth the originating 1961 birth record. So far NBC has decided not to argue the contrary, despite my invitation.
1 “Seems that WAYK agrees with my scenario…the facts support best my statements.” NBC
Ann Duham applied to the Hawaii courts to “divorce” Obama Sr in January 1964, and matters were concluded in March 1964. According to witnesses Ann was resident in Washington until at least September 1962. The residential period required for a Hawaii divorce was 2 years. Ann Dunham was clearly lying under oath in legal documents and proceedings… But here’s something that should be of interest to NBC, who claims that Ann Dunham moved with her son by themselves (with no income) into a large family house (Kamhehameha Ave) in 1963: what address could Ann Dunham give that would have “substantiated” her “2-years residency” ? 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, where according to NBC Ann hadn’t lived for 2 1/2 years and her parents supposedly hadn’t lived for months ? Her parents’ supposed and recent Alexander St apartment ? Or the large family house at 2277 Kamhehameha Ave ? Under what circumstances could Ann Dunham “prove” (or rather give “substance” to the impression) that she had lived on Kamhehameha for the required 2 years prior to her “divorce” ? Could they be the same circumstances that would have enabled Ann to qualify for instate tuition when resuming study at UH ?
2 “Yes, Dunham moved to the state of Washington soon after Obama was born in Honolulu. Your point being?”
The evidence of Ann Dunham’s move to Washington became public before the Honolulu Advertiser story was written. The Honolulu Advertiser distorted the facts when they lied by omission in ignoring the fact that Ann had turned up in Washington during August 1961. In which case: “If the Honolulu Advertiser is distorting the truth how can the Honolulu Advertiser story be trusted in all its details ? If the Honolulu Advertiser story cannot be trusted, why would anyone quote it as a reliable source ?”
And again, WAYK distorts the position of his opponents when he so obviously lacks the ability to reject them. What Dr C is pointing out is that the COLB would make for admissible evidence and as such is the best evidence that shows President Obama born in the US. The fantasies of a few who believe the COLB to be a forgery, something WAYK seems to support, is based on little substance. Thus WAYK has to distort the argument that the COLB as an image would not be acceptable to the Courts. Which is of course true but then again, the pictures are replicas of an original which would be admissible.
As such, WAYK’s fiction of ‘false addresses’ which is based on arguments where lack of evidence (such as in the case of Bigfoot) is used to prove its existence, has to be rejected in favor of the strongest evidence which is the combination of the COLB, and the advertisements in two Hawaii newspapers. Since the COLB clearly shows President Obama born on US soil, and since there are no credible explanations how such a birth could have been registered otherwise nor evidence that Obama was in fact NOT born on US soil, the courts will be quick to reject the argument.
Not that the case will ever make it into court for obvious reasons. However, the suggestion that the COLB has no relevant value is at best an attempt to ignore data that is at odds with one’s dreams.
“Useless comment” Dr C
1 There are various credible scenarios that could account for the circumstances of Obama Jr’s birth. The subject under discussion is whether the Dunhams and–or the Obamas ever really lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway and the implications for Obama’s COLB (if it exists).
2 Those implications are that under FRE 301 Obama’s COLB as prima facie evidence is liable to be rebutted in court. Furthermore, under other Rules of Evidence Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is not a true duplicate of the original record (1001 and 1003), not complete (106), not best evidence (1002), and therefore would be deemed insufficient evidence by itself.
3 Unlike Dr Conspiracy (“None of the cases that have been filed will ever see discovery in a court room…”) WAYK does not claim special, pre-cognitive powers, so any speculation is withheld until Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is tested at law. If Dr C’s powers really are to be trusted, comment by WAYK would indeed be “useless”.
No evidence of such has been presented. In fact I have yet to see any evidence of the HA which shows lies.
It seems that WAYK is quick to accuse others without evidence. Perhaps his insistence that people are guilty unless proven innocent extends to more than just the President?
As to the divorce agreement and other extraneous information, nothing of this has any relevance to the origin of President Obama’s birth which is testified to by the COLB as being on US soil.
That’s all that really matters.
Sigh…
WAYK claims
The concept of residency does not require one to be physically resident in the state. For instance if Dunham claimed Hawaii as her permanent residence and file proper taxes identifying Hawaii as such, the residency issue would be resolved. Of course, as I stated, the issue of Dunham having lied on her divorce papers has no relevance to the COLB which shows Obama born in the US.
Hawaii’s residency requirements presently show
My emphasis…. Your turn my dear friend
Seems that WAYK is completely unfamiliar with Hawaiian law which rules that the COLB is equivalent to the original. While it may be true that the original BC, if it still exists, is ‘better’, the Court has no choice but to accept the COLB as admissible evidence under its own rules, especially since the veracity of the document is sworn to and signed by the proper official and the document has the required seal. Since both aspects can be observed on the COLB Obama presented for inspection, the conclusion is that when the COLB is presented to the Court, the Court cannot dismiss it. In fact, the Court cannot even grant access to the original BC per Hawaiian law without some evidence on the part of the plaintiffs that the COLB is false. And there exists no credible evidence to make such a claim.
Note that under the concept of prima facie evidence, it is not sufficient to argue that the COLB could be false but rather that it has shown to be so.
Let me point WAYK to the relevant part of the rules
You do understand the argument Dr C was making? If so, your response is somewhat… well… you know…
If you have to step down to this kind of ‘argument’ then you must have little confidence in your abilities to address it on its issues.
Duly noted.
WAYK makes various assertions about the COLB such as not being the best document or merely being a copy. However, the Hawaiian State law is clear here.
Furthermore under the rules
HRS 338.13
In addition Rule 1005 specifies how copies of official records may be proven in court via a witness who has compared it with the original.
It seems that objecting to an official record is quite complicated.
I have noticed that since the Hawaii newspaper article on COLB, the term “long form” has disappeared from the debate here.
It was never really an issue it seems as Polarik already reported on this in one of his last year’s updates.
WAYK says: “Unlike Dr Conspiracy (”None of the cases that have been filed will ever see discovery in a court room…”) WAYK does not claim special, pre-cognitive powers, so any speculation is withheld until Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is tested at law. If Dr C’s powers really are to be trusted, comment by WAYK would indeed be “useless”.”
I don’t claim precognition. I claim to have read the pending cases. That’s where my prediction comes from.
WAYK, have you considered the effects of student status on residency requirements? I think your analysis on this point is a little shallow.
WAYK: “online images of something nobody has ever seen except two true believers”
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or who the “two true believers” are.
“WAYK” quotes: “In essence, an argument from ignorance is a good argument when it is the result of a responsible attempt to garner evidence that confirms or disconfirms the claim in question.”
The problem with the application of this principle to WAYK’s argument is that he has not made a “responsible attempt to garner evidence”. Because of the temporal distance of the events and the paucity of documentary evidence, it would be extremely difficult to make a “responsible attempt” to find evidence. Certainly nothing WAYK has done approaches an attempt, much less a responsible attempt. Even his favorite biographer never attempted specifically to address the question.
And of course, the only actual document specifically addressing the question refutes WAYK. Basically, WAYK is not only guilty of irresponsible argument from ignorance, but of ignoring the only piece of real evidence there is.
It’s like WAYK was trying to prove”all crows are black”. He goes about this by reading newspaper articles about crows. He only reads one article headlined “White crow seen in Honolulu”. On the basis of this, he declares “all crows are black because I didn’t find any articles about crows that were not black”.
Anyway you look at it, what I said was a valid point, and if YOU don’t understand that I don’t know what to tell you. If you have to step down to insinuations, that’s fine, it fits you.
Valid and point are words I would seldomly use to describe your musings.
As I said, you level of arguments is well… you know…
Apologies to my dear friend NBC for not responding to the invitation sooner: a nasty bout of flu intervened and WAYK’s still not rid of it. Unfortunately NBC hasn’t found a solution to the problem of Ann Dunham lying in official documents and proceedings through her divorce; indeed closer study of Hawaii legislation has led to a revision of WAYK’s argument, which makes Obama Jr’s position even less favorable than before.
NBC’s view is that Ann Dunham was domiciled in Hawaii from the time her parents moved there with her sometime between July and September 1960; this allows Ann to live in the State of Washington while retaining Hawaii domiciliary status, until she returns to Hawaii (if records are believed literally, which NBC does) sometime in the Spring of 1963. Otherwise, if Ann was not domiciled in Hawaii, she did not have the required two years continuous durational residency to qualify for a Hawaii divorce, and therefore lied in official documents and proceedings.
Let’s introduce the facts not in contention:
1 Ann Dunham of Mercer Island, Washington was offered the opportunity to study at the University of Chicago in 1960 and she wanted to take that opportunity.
2 Against her wishes, as expressed to friends in Washington, Ann Dunham was forced by her parents to relocate to Hawaii after graduating high school in 1960.
3 As a minor in Hawaii Ann Dunham would automatically take the domicile of her father, which we must assume was Hawaii.
4 Ann Dunham begins studying at UH in late September 1960 and four–five weeks later is made pregnant by a foreign student.
5 Ann Dunham drops out of UH around December 1960.
6 In February 1961 Ann Dunham marries the foreign student Barack Obama, the father of her child, a Kenyan-domiciled African nationalist who (according to witnesses and press reports) has no intention of settling in the United States.
7 On marriage at age 18 Ann Dunham becomes an adult, emancipated from her father.
8 In August 1961 Obama Jr is born. Ann Dunham said: “We [Dunham and Obama Sr] agreed that the three of us [Obama family] would return to Kenya after he [Obama Sr] finished his studies.” (Dreams From My Father, proofread by Ann Dunham) Within three weeks of her son’s birth Ann Dunham Obama is back residing in the State of Washington with Obama Jr.
9 Ann Dunham Obama tells friends in Washington (eg Susan Blake and Maxine Box in 1961) that she intends to move to Massachusetts when her husband enters Harvard for post-graduate study.
10 Ann Dunham tells friends in Washington (eg Mary Toutonghi in 1962) she intends to share her husband’s prominent social and political future life in an independent Kenya.
11 Obama Sr leaves Hawaii in June 1962 for a transcontinental US trip before going to Harvard to study.
12 Ann Dunham Obama leaves Washington for Hawaii sometime early in 1963 (if records are believed literally, which NBC does).
13 After divorcing Ann Dunham Obama in 1964 Obama Sr returns to Kenya with a white American woman as his third wife.
14 After divorcing Obama Sr Ann Dunham marries another foreign student at UH (Lolo Soetoro) and immigrates to Indonesia with Obama Jr in 1967.
Now let’s introduce the law AS IT APPLIED IN 1964:
a “Domicile… That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one’s home are the requisites of establishing a ‘domicile’ therein.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]
b Under Hawaii Law 1931 Act 51 Ann Dunham Obama after marriage was free to assume the actual domicile of her husband (Kenya).
c Matrimonial Domicile, Herbert F. Goodrich,The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Nov., 1917): “The question as to what place is to be regarded as the matrimonial domicile, the law of which will determine the effect of the marriage upon personal property owned by either party at the time, or subsequently acquired by either or both during the existence of such domicile, is in its last analysis one of the intention of the parties at the time of the marriage as to where they shall establish their residence… The various rules that have been adopted on the subject are really rules for ascertaining that intention, or for supplying, by presumption, the lack of any evidence or other circumstances which will reveal it…Now, if a “matrimonial domicile” is one to be established by the intention of the parties… it seems to be granted that in the absence of evidence of intention to the contrary, the parties are presumed to take the husband’s domicile as their matrimonial domicile. ”
d U.S. Supreme Court FONG YUE TING v. U S, 149 U.S. 698 (1893): “The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel [in his book The Law of Nations as] ‘domicile,’ which he defines to be ‘a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there’…This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration.”
e U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939): “Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make the place of residence one’s home, are the essential elements of domicile…the actual fact of the place of residence and the person’s real attitude and intention with respect to it as disclosed by his course of conduct are the controlling factors in ascertaining his domicile.”
f U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941): “…the Board need not find the exact time when the “attitude and relationship of person to place” which constitute domicile were formed…It is common experience that this process usually is unmarked by any dramatic or even sharply defined episode…In order to retain his former domicile, one…must always have a fixed and definite intent to return…A mere sentimental attachment will not hold the old domicile… the manner of living…taken in connection with one’s station in life, is relevant…All facts which go to show the relations retained to one’s former place of abode are relevant in determining domicile. What bridges have been kept and what have been burned? Does he retain a place of abode there, or is there a family home with which he retains identity? Does he have investments in local property or enterprise which attach him to the community? What are his affiliations with the professional, religious, and fraternal life of the community, and what other associations does he cling to? How permanent was his domicile in the community from which he came? Had it long been a family seat, or was he there a bird of passage?”
g “Evidentiary Factors in the Determination of Domicil, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 7 (Jul., 1948): “…the judicial standard of domicil is essentially equivalent to the lay idea of “home.” The first requirement, presenting no problem of proof, is simply some residential connection with the place in question. The second is often defined as an intent to remain at that place with no present intent to remove therefrom, or as the intent to make a home…the courts have mentioned evidence of the personal characteristics of the party as indications of domicil. His age, background, personal interests, and awareness of family tradition have at various times been considered evidence of the requisite feeling of attachment. Reliance has also been placed upon his past course of conduct. If he acquires a second residence, the undertaking at the new home of activities formerly carried on at the old tends to show a change of domicil, while such an inference is rebutted by the continuation at his old home of the previous pattern of life…”
h State of Washington Attorney General’s Opinion 1975 No. 5: ” …the doctrine of marital residence upon which we based that [1946] opinion may be traced to ancient Roman law under which marriage created a theoretical identity of person and subjected the wife completely to the marital power of the husband. This Roman concept seems to have been brought forward into Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence by the case of Arnott v. Groom, 9 D. (Sc. Sess. Cas. 2d Ser.) 142 (1846), in which it was extended so far as to dictate that a wife was powerless to select a domicile for herself even with the consent of her husband. M. W. Jacobs,The Law of Domicil, § 215 (1887). The only exception to this rule existed where the marital status had been dissolved by formal divorce or a [legal separation].”
i State of Washington Attorney General’s Opinion 1971 No. 15: “…the phrase “reside with” connotes a relationship of a more formal or permanent nature than the phrase “live with.” More than mere physical presence would be needed to establish this relationship and more than mere physical absence would be needed to disrupt it…the legislature’s use of the concept of residence…may be analogized to its use of “residence” as a jurisdictional requirement for the initiation of a divorce action under RCW 26.08.030 – in which context the term has been held to be synonymous with domicile…To establish a domicile requires the physical presence at the place of intended domicile accompanied by the intention of making that place one’s home. A domicile, once established, is not destroyed by a temporary absence no matter how long continued. Once acquired, domicile is presumed to continue until changed and the change must be shown by substantial evidence. It is the generally accepted rule that a woman at marriage loses her own domicile, and acquires that of her husband, although she may acquire a separate domicile when living apart from her husband… a question concerning a change of matrimonial domicile is to be answered by establishing the intent of the parties, and particularly the husband, since the husband’s domicile is generally considered to be the wife’s… a married woman need not be physically living in the same place as her husband in order to be “residing with” him…so long as the requisite intent to retain a common marital domicile is present…”
It seems quite clear that when the facts not in contention are blended with the law as applied in 1964 these conclusions must follow:
1 Until 1963 Ann Dunham never wanted to live in Hawaii and never had any intention of being domiciled there. 2 Obama Sr’s domicile was Kenya. 3 On marriage Ann Dunham Obama was free under Hawaii law to chose her own domicile (while in the State of Washington her domicile was presumed in law to be Kenya). Ann Dunham said: “We [Dunham and Obama Sr] agreed that the three of us [Obama family] would return to Kenya after he [Obama Sr] finished his studies.” “Return to Kenya” can only mean that Ann Dunham Obama had the understanding and made the decision that her domicile was her husband’s domicile. 4 Ann Dunham Obama relocated to the State of Washington immediately after marriage and the birth of her son. 5 Ann Dunham Obama told various witnesses in 1961 and 1962 that her intention was to rejoin her husband in Harvard and then immigrate to Kenya. 6 By her actions and statements Ann Dunham Obama demonstrated that after her marriage and emancipation she had NO INTENTION of being domiciled in Hawaii and consequently she was not legally domiciled in Hawaii when she returned in 1963. 7 Ann Dunham Obama lied in official documents and proceedings when she stated under oath that she satisfied the two years durational residency the law set for eligibility to divorce in Hawaii, or 8 Ann Dunham Obama lied to practically everyone she knew, including her husband and son.
There are only two avenues that NBC can use to escape these conclusions: a) Ann Dunham Obama’s ignorance of the law (which is no excuse, as a lawyer was retained, so it won’t be mentioned again), or b) to claim that Dunham and Obama Sr were never lawfully married (no licence or certificate having been found), or were bigamous, and therefore Ann was never emancipated from her father. The problem with the latter claim is twofold: under Hawaii law a marriage certificate is not necessary to prove a marriage and a marriage can only be declared bigamous and annulled by explicit decree of a Hawaii court. Such a decree annulling the bigamous Dunham-Obama marriage was never issued and prior to the annulment of a Hawaii marriage the presumption is that the marriage is valid. (Okubo v. Sato, 29 Haw. 716 1927). Given that both Ann Dunham and Obama Sr are no longer alive this can never change. Therefore Ann Dunham Obama, by virtue of her never-annulled marriage to Obama Sr, WAS legally emancipated from her father, not domiciled in Hawaii at her divorce, and her son was legitimate.
There are further and even more serious implications, which apply even if the Dunham-Obama marriage had been annulled. In the case of Leong v. Leong, 27 F.2d 582 9th Cir. 1928, 278 U.S. 636, 49 S. Ct. 33, 73 L. Ed. 552 the parties were married in Hawaii according to Chinese custom but without an official license, until the husband refused to recognize the marriage as valid. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the putative wife was entitled to the rights of a legal wife. The essential basis of a putative marriage is the honest belief by one of the parties contracting marriage in it’s apparent validity. Hence the Dunham-Obama divorce. While Ann Dunham as putative wife would not have been recognized in British Kenyan law, thereby preventing Obama Jr from being a British citizen at birth by descent, under Hawaii law Obama Jr would be deemed the legitimate son of Ann Dunham.
Consequently, any way one looks at it, were a legitimate Obama Jr not born in the United States then his mother (from within a never-annulled marriage or as a putative wife) did not have sufficient residency (5 years after age 14) to transmit US citizenship. It gets even more bizarre: given that Ann Dunham lied in legal documents and proceedings during her divorce from Obama Sr about satisfying Hawaii residency, then the Dunham-Obama divorce was not valid (the State of Hawaii had no jurisdiction), Dunham’s subsequent marriage to Lolo Soetoro was itself bigamous, and all associated mysteries are more tangled than we ever conceived imaginable.
“Let me point WAYK to the relevant part of the rules. Rule 902. Self-authentication… (2)” NBC
No one can deny NBC is game. Let’s see what a recognized authority says about FRE 902:
“FRE 902 only addresses whether or not an exhibit is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible…Even though an exhibit is self-authenticating, it may still be excluded under other Rules. Whether a writing is self-authenticating is a matter for the trial judge under FRE 104(a), and the judge has discretion to…decline to treat it as self-authenticating… Does FRE 902 merely recognize categories of evidence where the authentication requirement is satisfied as a matter of law or, does it go further and create a presumption of authenticity that is binding on the jury in the absence of rebutting evidence? An earlier draft of the Rule provided that evidence falling within the listed categories would be “presumed to be authentic,” but the presumption terminology was ELIMINATED without explanation from the final version…”
If Obama’s attorneys ever produce a paper COLB in court (assuming it exists) “it may still be excluded under other Rules”, in particular Rules 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003. Can we say that it would not be a wild guess to suppose that if NBC could think up ways whereby Obama’s COLB (assuming it exists) could not be excluded under Rules 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003 then NBC would not be pointing us toward Rule 902. Naturally if NBC has thought up some ways WAYK is always ready to oblige.
The same recognized authority above also states about FRE 902(2): “The signature requirement should be satisfied only by an apparent actual signature, not by a facsimilie signature.” Looking at Factcheck.org’s purported photo of Obama’s COLB, the State Registrar’s signature quite obviously comes via a smudgy rubber stamp. According to FRE 902(2), cited by NBC, Obama’s COLB is not admissible as evidence in court.
Seems WAYK is once again full of bombast and references but fails to establish that Dunham lied and that such a lie affects Obama’s natural born status.
WAYK seems to make much of taking literally the records. What he seems to see as a weakness is in fact a strength.
Fact: Dunham was a resident of Hawaii and her stay in Washington had no impact on he residency status, nor her intentions as she never followed through on them
Once WAYK can establish that Dunham lied, we can discuss what this means to Obama’s natural born status: which is _NOTHING_
“…it would be extremely difficult to make a “responsible attempt” to find evidence…the only actual document specifically addressing the question refutes WAYK…[who is] ignoring the only piece of real evidence there is.” Dr C
We should be reminded of what US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1986 called the first principles of justice that ultimately define a system of law: “the principles of uniform application of rules, of consistency, of evenhandedness, of fairness.”
Is Dr C saying that there will never be enough evidence, or that WAYK has not searched diligently enough for this “extremely difficult to find” evidence, to allow the conclusion that the “Mother’s Address” as given in Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record is false ? Together both suggestions are contradictory, amounting to a deflection of such evidence as does exist. Until now this evidence has been perfectly acceptable to Dr C, allowing him to claim the “Mother’s Address” is genuine, which we assume he still continues to believe is genuine, but now this same evidence is just not good enough to establish it as false ? This is not consistent, evenhanded, or fair. Any way they are read, Dr C’s remarks, if applied, can have no other outcome but to shutdown any further discussion on this topic: which leaves the “Mother’s Address” as given in Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record unchallenged as “genuine”.
Given that Dr C truly believes that present evidence confirms the “Mother’s Address” as genuine and thus the COLB’s prima facie presumption as warranted, what part of “under FRE Rule 301 alternative logical conclusions drawn from the same evidence rebuts a prima facie presumption” does Dr C not understand ? Unless Dr C does NOT believe the evidence is adequate to substantiate the “Mother’s Address” as genuine…. In which case we anticipate Dr C unambiguously encouraging open-minded discussion and new lines of research. Otherwise the question stands.
“…[WAYK] only reads one article…” Dr C
Not quite sure which article the hitherto astoundingly psychic Dr Conspiracy refers to: would it be the Honolulu Advertiser story that Dr C believes to be literally true in all details, even when it fails to check or omits significant details and relies on “It can be assumed” and “It’s feasible” to advance serious journalism ? I must have read the other one.
A detailed analysis will be found posted above.
If WAYK had spent some time studying the authority he would have found that it involves official documents not under seal. Now I understand why WAYK was reluctant to present the complete reference which is Christopher B. Mueller, Laird C. Kirkpatrick Evidence, Aspen Publishers Online, 1995
Nice try though… Without the reference one would not easily have found the full context of the quote on page 1454
Is NBC seriously suggesting he read, understood, and dismissed (without submitting a comparable examination) by 10.35pm a detailed and sourced analysis – WHICH HE REQUESTED – that was only was posted at 10.24pm ? 11 minutes ? An analysis WHICH HE REQUESTED ? 11 minutes ?
What conclusion would any reasonable person draw from those facts ?
As to the other rules
The problem is that 1) the COLB is sufficient to establish Obama’s birth 2) the COLB is the legal Hawaiian Birth Certificate so there are no ‘other writings’ to be considered.
A COLB shifts the presumption to the plaintiff to show that the COLB does not meet the level of evidence.
The COLB is relevant evidence.
As to 1001 and 1002, per rule 1003
Note the: A genuine question…
That it is relatively easy to see through your bs?
The assumption that the mother’s address is correct is based on the fact that it was provided on the birth certificate and that no evidence has been provided to prove that it was not the mother’s residence at the time of birth of her son.
Information provided on official forms is assumed to be correct unless it can be shown otherwise. I doubt that you have met that burden of proof.
“The misguided beliefs that the Court will somehow reject an official document like a COLB without further evidence…” NBC
As with NBC’s embarrassingly flawed citation of FRE 902 below it’s clear that NBC is floundering. Further evidence is NOT needed to rebut the prima facie presumption of Obama’s COLB (if it exists): under FRE Rule 301 alternative logical conclusions drawn from the same evidence rebuts a prima facie presumption.
Till we see NBC come up with a detailed answer to the applicability of Rules 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003 we can presume NBC has NO answer.
“Since there is NO evidence that the document is fraudulent…” NBC
NBC twists a quotation (of Expelliarmus) by WAYK into a quote from WAYK. What kind of person does that ? WAYK never said that Obama’s COLB is fraudulent. Those words were within quotes (“…strong, direct evidence” “…the document itself is fraudulent”) as anyone can see for themselves. Therefore for NBC to say “I wonder how WAYK can believe that arguing that it is…” is a distortion. What that means WAYK leaves for others to judge.
As for personal insults: they only demean NBC rather than WAYK and expose the absence of mature argument.
What WAYK seems to forget is that he has to establish not the meaning of residency in general but rather residency in the meaning as used in Divorce proceedings. To give a counter example: Residency for purpose of in state tuition can be established by presence in the state for 12 months, registering to vote, filing for taxes.
For divorce purposes, residency is determined by HRS 580-1
“Physically present” construed. Haw Supp, 3 HBJ, Fall 1965, at 20.
Hawaiian Supplement Hawaii Bar Journal
I find it fascinating how WAYK is accusing me of flawed citations when he somehow messed up his citations relating to unsealed documents.
FRE Rule 301 indicates that when the COLB is presented as evidence of Hawaiian birth, it is up to the plaintiff to show otherwise.
In fact, 301 has little to do with a prima facie rebuttal which in fact requires a bit more than handwaving.
Let me explain
The same with Prima Facie evidence which places the burden on the plaintiff to establish that the COLB fails to establish a valid US birth.
Since the State of Hawaii considers the COLB prima facie evidence, the fact that it shows Obama born on US soil has to be accepted as fact until rebutted by the plaintiff in sufficient format. The plaintiff can attempt to show that the COLB is fake, but that will be hard given the fact that the accuracy is certified by raised seal and signature. The DOH can be asked to verify the information if necessary but the prima facie evidence requires contradicting evidence showing that Obama was NOT born on US soil. Since there appears to be no admissible evidence to support such a claim, I’d say that the case becomes quite untenable.
No other conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the COLB shows Obama born on US soil.
Seems that WAYK has rule 301 upside down. Once admitted as a self authorizing valid government document, the COLB established a presumption that now needs to be rebutted by real evidence, not possibilities. There is no presumption that Obama’s COLB is truthful, since it is the prima facie evidence of the facts.
Wayk, respectfully, your point has been completely lost in the many weeks of commenting which is probably why its only NBC that understands you, would you mind clarifying for me what exactly you are trying to establish ?
Is it that Obama snr was alway governed by the laws of Kenya even though he was physically present in the USA ?
Is that Obama Snr for all purposes must be treated as a diplomat & isnt subject to the laws of the USA when he there ?
Is it that marriage automatically changes your residency & domicile even if one hasnt physically left the vicinity of the USA ?
Is it that a person’s address put in a birth cert is what determines if a person is born in the usa ? so if for some reason one gives birth in a different state of the USa different from the the stated address one isnt a citizen of the US ?
Are u saying Obama Snr wasn’t resident or domiciled in the USA during the period he was there studying so if something had happened to him during this period he would be treated as if he was physically still in Kenya rather than the fact that he was physically in the US ?
I think you need to clarify more.
Thanks
Wayk, forgot to add sorry about the flu, hope u get fully well soon
WAYK: Consequently, any way one looks at it, were a legitimate Obama Jr not born in the United States then his mother (from within a never-annulled marriage or as a putative wife) did not have sufficient residency (5 years after age 14) to transmit US citizenship.
But Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, so I don’t see the point.
He’s arguing that since he was actually born to a Foreigner that had no intention of permentantly residing in the United States, the actual legal location of his birth was Kenya, not the United States. Of course, this doesn’t make sense, but that is what he’s arguing, as far as I can tell.
Thanks for the response as NBC & wayk have been on this & some other issue unknown to the rest of us. I think this was what i got as well but wasn’t sure as its one really funny reasoning to come to that conclusion
Emerich de Vattel might have offered WAYK some sympathy, but the US Courts that have discussed the issue said that temporary residence of the parents is sufficient.
However, De Vattel hasn’t prevailed since Dred Scott.
You are correct that does not make sense. But then again what does?
The two independent newspaper birth announcements, which by all accounts originated from the Hawaii Department of Health, provide strong evidence of the declaration of that address by Ann Obama contemporary to the birth of Barack Obama.
Arguments from ignorance (which is not a valid argument form when due diligence to search for confirming evidence is lacking) and speculation to the contrary, the preponderance of the direct evidence is that Ann Obama considered the address she gave as her “usual address”.
I don’t think “everybody is lying” is an “alternate theory” that the courts would give much weight to.
Especially since newspapers are self authenticating under FRE 902. When so much evidence supports the facts are presumed, it will be hard to overcome evidentiary requirements to have the presumption of born on US soil removed.
FRE 301 rather than undermining the COLB becomes its friend
Domicile requirements in Hawaii
Nope, Summer of 1962
“…the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the six-month domiciliary or physical presence requirement for divorce…is jurisdictional in the sense that a court cannot enter a divorce decree in the absence of proof of domicile for the necessary length of time.” [NBC citing Haw. Puckett v Puckett, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2000]
1 Precisely. In no way can “proof” be taken to mean “substituting lies” about domicile, such as Ann Dunham Obama offered in 1964.
2 The requirement in 1961 was 2 years domicile or continuous prior residence: Hawaii Revised Law 1925, Section 2966, amended 1927. If Haw. Puckett v Puckett 2000 is applied, then, in its discussion of the implications of Haw. Whitehead v Whitehead 1972, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals states: “It is clear…that the durational six-month period applies to BOTH domicile and physical presence” (Footnote 12), and Hawaii Revised Statutes 580-1 duly follows: ” …family court authorized to grant the divorce decree dissolving the marriage as long as wife was domiciled in Hawaii for a continuous period of six months prior to entry of the divorce decree.” Ann Dunham Obama was not domiciled in Hawaii for a continuous period of two years as required by Hawaii prior to January or March 1964. NBC should read more closely or be more honest about the sources he cites.
3 Hawaii Supreme Court, 1998:
“Domicile is proved by evidence of two facts: physical presence at a particular place and intention of the party to reside there permanently; or, as is sometimes said, to make the place his home with no present intent to leave at any foreseeable future time … A person establishes his domicile in a state by being physically present there with the intention of remaining indefinitely … intent to remain shown by intent to remain in current residence indefinitely…”
In terms of domicile, absent any statement of intent by Ann Dunham Obama to be domiciled in Hawaii and with many statements of intent by her to the contrary before she could have become aware of their consequences, then what other possible meaning can be given to Ann Dunham Obama’s recorded actions whereby she became resident again in the State of Washington in 1961 (which State she had recently never wanted to leave), within three weeks of her son’s birth, having dropped out of UH and left her husband behind in Hawaii (but having the multiply-stated aim of relocating with the Obama family to Kenya), other than she had no intention of living in Hawaii following her emancipation on marriage ?
As required by Hawaii law, all the evidence in both actions and intent points to a single conclusion: Ann Dunham Obama relinquished Hawaiian domicile in August 1961 and on her return to Hawaii, at the earliest in the “Summer of 1962” (NBC), she did not have the required two year’s domicile in 1964 to qualify for a Hawaii divorce, but lied under oath that she did.
And this disproves Obama’s Hawaiian birth…how?
Rule 106: “When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. ” (FRE)
This Rule means that Obama’s original 1961 birth record, of which the COLB is only an abstract, in consequence merely a part, and without essential details that would incontrovertibly support its probity, cannot in fairness be excluded from consideration. No court would refuse admission of Obama’s original 1961 birth record, and Obama’s attorney’s would be powerless to stop it. “Sufficiency” is irrelevant to the Rule.
Rule 301: NBC has demonstrated elsewhere on this page that he is so ill-informed he doesn’t have the first clue what Rule 301 means.
Rule 401: “The COLB is relevant evidence” writes NBC. The point of this thread is whether THE “MOTHER’S ADDRESS” in Obama’s original 1961 birth record is relevant evidence. To refresh NBC’s sometimes treacherous memory: to prove THE “MOTHER’S ADDRESS” isn’t relevant NBC must show that there has not been offered here ANY evidence against Obama’s supposed COLB; that the judicial system is wrong to maintain that it does not expect relevant evidence to make the existence of the fact to be proved more probable than not or that it provide a sufficient basis for sending the issue to the jury; and that it is impossible for any logical conclusions to be drawn from the evidence offered except that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. To this NBC has responded (above) with a quotation, taken from someone else by WAYK, which NBC has then twisted and distorted into a false “quotation” of WAYK, not made any sweeter by NBC’s embarrassingly flawed and totally erroneous use of Rule 301, leading NBC to strangely (or lazily) opine that WAYK had Rule 301 “upside down”.
Rule 1003: “A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.” (FRE) The genuine question about the authenticity of Obama’s original and originating 1961 birth record is established with the impossibility of eliminating alternative logical conclusions to the near-certain falsity of the “Mother’s Address” etc etc under FRE Rule 301, made relevant by Rule 401; in which case the COLB admitted to the exclusion of Obama’s original and originating 1961 birth record would be truly definitive of “unfairness”.
Rule 1001: NBC neatly avoids the incontrovertible fact that the COLB cannot be admitted as a true duplicate of, and thus cannot possibly exclude, Obama’s original and originating 1961 birth record from consideration by a court, because it is no more than an limited and reduced abstract from an edited database.
Rule 1002: Obama’s attorneys have a legal duty under Rule 1002 to provide their “best evidence”, that is original and originating documents, to a court. Obama’s COLB (if it exists) did not originate itself and is not Obama’s original 1961 birth record, but only a limited and reduced abstract of the original from 1961: therefore it cannot be submitted as “best evidence” to the exclusion of all other evidence. Neither NBC nor Obama’s attorneys can sidestep this Rule, but judging by NBC’s lack of reference to it, perhaps he thought he had.
To anyone more than superficially cognizant of the history of legal presumptions it would have been immediately obvious that NBC’s use of the Advisory Committee’s Note appended to Federal Rule of Evidence #301 is (sigh) once again embarrassingly flawed.
The quote given by NBC comes from the first paragraph of FRE 301 ACN. The Committee states and references the then-innovative view on presumptions as advocated by Professor Edmund Morgan of Harvard. When examined by the US Congress, Morgan’s theory view was REJECTED by Congress in favor of the already established and applied position of Harvard Professor James Thayer. It is Thayer’s doctrine on presumptions which the Federal Rules of Evidence has ALWAYS AND EXCLUSIVELY applied but this is not reflected in the first paragraph (as cited by NBC) of the Advisory Committee’s Notes to FRE #301.
As Professor of Law Daniel J. Capra at Fordham University School of Law puts it: “The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 301 is essentially a brief for the Morgan view of presumptions…The problem with the note [to 301] is that Congress rejected the Advisory Committee’s view of the matter. Rule 301 adopts the [Thayer] view of presumptions…Thus, a lawyer operating with a presumption in her favor should not rely on the Advisory Committee Note; if she did, she would have a misplaced confidence in the ability of the presumption to withstand contrary evidence.”
Consequently NBC’s “explanation” is not an “explanation” to be relied upon. Or to put it another way, how would NBC know if WAYK “has rule 301 upside down” if NBC doesn’t even know what ACN 301 actually means and, worse, never got beyond its first sentence ?
WAYK has consistently used Thayer and the as-applied-in-courts Federal Rules of Evidence to interpret the status of Obama’s COLB (if it exists). Therefore I repeat: Till we see NBC come up with DETAILED and other-than-embarrassingly-flawed answers refuting the applicability of Rules 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003 we can presume NBC has NO such arguments.
“What WAYK seems to forget is that he has to establish not the meaning of residency in general but rather residency in the meaning as used in Divorce proceedings.” NBC
This from someone who has a demonstrably treacherous memory and who tried to foist current Hawaii voting regulations as applicable to domicile in a 1961 divorce ! Whatever, NBC’s “counter-examples” have nothing to do with divorce law and there are no examples in legislation where residency in these cases has ever directly transferred to divorce law. Residency in each class is unique and specific: for example, residency in health or welfare cases has no effect with regard to matrimonial law. That is why the “intent” NBC highlights is only applicable for those seeking in-state tuition in Hawaii: it could have no relevance in divorce, welfare, or immigration regulations and cases in Hawaii in 1961. Unless NBC can show otherwise; but he should read my post above and study its sources first.
“domiciled or has been physically present”
In 1961 when a divorce decree was made Hawaii law required two years continuous domicile or prior residence. For example and noted above from Obama’s own book “Dreams From My Father”, Ann Dunham told her son she never had any intention of being domiciled in Hawaii after his birth; given that Ann Dunham herself proofread and authorized this statement; given even NBC admits (by citing Haw. Puckett v Puckett 2000, Haw. Whitehead v Whitehead 1972, and Hawaii Revised Statutes 580-1) that Ann Dunham Obama needed two years domicile or continuous prior residence before January or March 1964 to be eligible to obtain a divorce decree in Hawaii; then, even on the most generous and sympathetic estimate of Ann Dunham Obama’s return to Hawaii (NBC’s “Summer of 1962”), Ann Dunham Obama did not satisfy the required period of domicile or residency and in consequence proceeded to lie about it under oath and in legal documents. Or she lied to her son, husband, and friends. Or Obama’s lying about his mother.
“If WAYK had spent some time studying the authority [with regard to Rule 902(2)]…Nice try though” NBC
It seems to have eluded NBC’s treacherous memory that it was NBC that cited FRE 902(2), not WAYK !
“Let me point WAYK to the relevant part of the rules. Rule 902…(2)” NBC
Now NBC has convinced himself that WAYK brought it up!
First invention of what WAYK what said, then distortion of what WAYK said, and now a treacherous memory “mis-remembering” what WAYK said. Very strange. No wonder NBC identifies so closely with Ann Dunham Obama and her family.
Hate to tell you this, but students are generally considered residents of their home state, not the state that they’re attending school at. Oregon, for instance, has residency requirements that have their primary purpose of being here to not attend school.
Dunham was a resident of the State of Hawaii. That’s a plain and simple fact.
A person with legal representation who lies under oath is capable of entering false information (eg 6085 Kalanianaole Highway as “Mother’s Address) in Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record.
Read back through the topic, Bob, and the implications (whether you accept them or not) wlll become very clear.
Hate to tell you this, dunstvangeet, but if you had read through the discussion in earlier pages you would understand that the reality of Ann Dunham Obama’s domicile is not as plain and simple as you mistakenly believe. You must counter an argument with appropriate detail, not dismiss it with tangential recollection.
ROTFL. A neighbor does not remember and you consider this an argument?
Sad, ain’t it?
There is no evidence that she lied, only a theory. And there are no “implications”.
Actually, there are many “implications.” None of which are particularly compelling, and none demonstrate the invalidity of the COLB.
On a previous page it was indicated to NBC that ROTFL surely means “Refusal of Truth Forfeits Logic”. I am almost tempted now to agree with his preferred interpretation…but perhaps that would be to mock the afflicted. One fully understands that NBC’s treacherous memory may have clouded his understanding that at a very early stage WAYK gave assurances that the “neighbor” at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway would NEVER be cited.
On that basis it would be interesting if NBC could show where in this discussion WAYK has recourse to “a neighbor” (whose?) at 6075 and her alleged tangential recollection.
In a civil lawsuit only a theory defeats a theory.
The implication is that an unopposed theory wins by default, and when opposed is only defeated by a better theory.
WAYK is open to a better theory.
It is easy for Bob to flatly deny any credence to WAYK’s arguments but this is not a strategy that will succeed for Obama’s attorneys in court.
On the matter of Ann Dunham Obama lying under oath in divorce documents and proceedings: evidence of her intention to domicile in Hawaii after August 1961 must be found or it can only be concluded she lied about meeting the required period of residence to divorce under Hawaii law.
On the matter of the “Mother’s Address” in Obama’s original 1961 birth record: it has to be shown that alternative logical conclusions to its purported truth are impossible otherwise the COLB’s presumption fails.
These may not be implications for Bob; for Obama’s attorneys these are implications they’re paid to understand. Of course, Obama could save “himself” the cash and his lawyers the potential embarrassment by settling the issue definitively. For some strange reason Obama is willing to take his chances with the implications.
WAYK: On the matter of Ann Dunham Obama lying under oath in divorce documents and proceedings: evidence of her intention to domicile in Hawaii after August 1961 must be found or it can only be concluded she lied about meeting the required period of residence to divorce under Hawaii law.
Fascinating, guilty until proven innocent. WAYK has no legs to stand on. There is no evidence of her lying under oath.
Simple as that. Furthermore, even if she did, it has no implications on the fact that President Obama was born on US soil.
Pathetic my dear friend, truly pathetic.
A contribution which WAYK is sure was made to the discussion at this point on July Fourth in response to a question from Dr Conspiracy seems to have been completely removed. Certainly the question asked by Dr C (and saved by WAYK) is gone.
It’s not for WAYK to repeat the question Dr C asked of WAYK but here is most of WAYK’s intended reply:
We should be reminded of what US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1986 called the first principles of justice that ultimately define a system of law: “the principles of uniform application of rules, of consistency, of evenhandedness, of fairness.”
Is Dr C saying that there will never be enough evidence, or WAYK has not searched diligently enough for this “extremely difficult to find” evidence, to allow the conclusion that the “Mother’s Address” as given in Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record is false ? Together both suggestions are contradictory, amounting to a deflection of such evidence as does exist. Until now this evidence has been perfectly acceptable to Dr C, allowing him to claim the “Mother’s Address” is genuine, which we assume he still continues to believe is genuine, but now this same evidence is just not good enough to establish it as false ? This is not consistent, evenhanded, or fair. Any way they are read, Dr C’s remarks, if applied, can have no other outcome but to shutdown any further discussion on this topic: which leaves the “Mother’s Address” as given in Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record unchallenged as “genuine”.
Given that Dr C truly believes that present evidence confirms the “Mother’s Address” and thus the COLB’s prima facie presumption as genuine, what part of “under FRE Rule 301 alternative logical conclusions drawn from the same evidence rebuts a prima facie presumption” does Dr C not understand ? Unless Dr C does NOT believe the evidence is adequate to substantiate the “Mother’s Address” as genuine. In which case we anticipate Dr C unambiguously encouraging open-minded discussion and new lines of research. Otherwise the question stands.
Wayk, you seem to be arguing with no-one, we have given you reason why we’re okay with the address supplied & you’ve been trying for months to convince us the address cant be Obama mom’s address, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED; We are smart enough to know that we can leave an address on any document as our place of resident (even if our stay there is temporary, but pple can contact us there) & it’s a valid statement as it reflects our state as at the time of filling the document.
When i visited the USA last year, i stayed with friends in Maryland & every form or document (including forms in different websites)i used a particular address & throughout my stay i receive letters, ebay items, credit card offers etc at this address. Did i lie that that was my address ? NO !! it was where i could be reached at that time & after i leave correspondence is still arriving there for me , my friend just pack & send it down to me.
It would also help if your responses werent several weeks late.
It would also help if your responses werent several weeks late.
And used plain, concise language.
I cannot believe the absolute idiocy of you folks who keep obsessing over this. Were two newspapers, who pulled their live birth announcements, parent names, sex of the child and address of the parents from the Dept of Vital Statistics at the Hawaii Health Department in on this conspiracy in 1961? Is the REPUBLICAN governor of Hawaii who claims Obama’s birth certificate is VALID in on this conspiracy? Is the State of Hawaii also in on his conspiracy, including the people who issued the copy “short form” that’s got ya’ll in a tizzy? Of what benefit is it to the REPUBLICAN governor of the state to conspire with Obama on his birth? Is he getting paid? Is it just fun for him? Hmmm, I wonder. What kind of kooky “theories” can we come up with as to WHY the REPUBLICAN governor of Hawaii is stating that Obama’s Hawaiian birth is valid? Maybe its the illuminati! Yeah, that’s the ticket. Its freemasons and illuminati and the new world order, they’re all in on this, right? You guys are, as NBC said, truly pathetic.
Refusal of Truth Forfeits Logic, that’s a perfect description of the morons who think Obama is a Kenyan and not an American. I’ve never seen such bizarre, vile hatred of a man. I thought Clinton was hated and haunted by your same wingnut brigade in on this “birther” crapola, but ya’ll make Whitewater investigations and internet sex look like child’s play with your hatred. There are none so blind as those who will not see. FactCheck.org, a group founded and funded by an Ambassador and personal friend of Ronald Reagan, sees the document, and reports its validity. That’s not good enough. The Republican governor of the state says its valid, that’s not good enough. The head of the Hawaii Dept of Health says its valid and they certify it is valid, that’s not good enough. No matter what you get shown, it won’t be good enough, because the sad truth is that you folks WANT TO BELIEVE this mess.
This crowd won’t admit a bit of blame for supporting the worst president in our history who dragged us into a war in Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan, where the terrorist were trained, lying about WMDs. This crowd won’t at all accept that six out of the eight years were controlled by Republicans 100% and led us into complete economic disaster (of course, its’ Clinton’s fault, and Obama’s fault), and this same whackadoodle crowd can’t accept that the rest of America had finally had enough of mismanagement, horrid governing, and all of the mess that’s come with it, and that they have been defeated by a black man, and a black man who in their mind is not a citizen, will never be a citizen, no matter WHY evidence they see. You don’t want to believe it. You will never be satisfied. You people keep RJ Reynolds Aluminum in business with your metal hat business.
I don’t know most of my neighbors in my subdivision. I was born in Honolulu in 1968, and left when I was a baby. I assure you my old neighbors in Hawaii would not remember my being their 41 years ago, or my name , or anything else. This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever read. “The neighbor doesn’t remember a black baby next door” from 47 years ago. Why, that’s all the evidence we need, huh! I can’t believe how STUPID these people are. Its astounding.
I would remind everyone that it was determined via a simply property records search that the neighbor did NOT own the property 40 years ago. (Its somewhere in the comments here- the neighbor had only owned the property since sometime in the 90’s). So the “neighbor” didn’t live there in the 60’s and probably didn’t have a clue what she was being asked.
What I was saying is that a diligent search has not been made to track down evidence to corroborate that the Mother’s address on the newspaper birth announcement is correct. Therefore, one cannot claim that the lack of evidence proves the negative.
I am not completely swayed either way, but I have a theory and I repeat it’s only a theory, because Obama may well have been born in Hawaii. My theory is he was as he grndfather is quoted saying that he was born in Kenya, but seeing how his father benefited coming to America and knew what this country could offer him they made a live birth announcement in the Hawaii papers stating they lived at Ann Dunhams parents address. They got the certificate from the Hawaii hospital which Hawaii was known for giving out birth certificates at that time to people born outside the country all so he could be registered as a US citizen. Again it’s only a theory, I don’t believe there has been any conspiracy on anyones part, only that it’s possible Obama wasn’t born here, but his parents felt he would be better off in his life appearing to born a US citizen, so they put the necessary things in place for him to appear he was actually born here when he wasn’t.
Honestly, I’ve read thru the strings, and don’t see how her domicile or residence for that matter correlates to the issue of the birth of Barack. One person may or may not have lied in divorce proceedings, so what? What has that got to do again with the occurence of a factual event? By the way, U.S. laws in the immigration and nationality act section 301 confers citizenship “at birth” to a certain class of individuals. That law can be found at http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a4 . If you read subsection (g) of section 301, you will find that even if he wasn’t born in Hawaii, he is still among the class of individuals considered citizens at birth.
One problem with your theory. They can get the certificate saying a live birth has taken place but the certificate will state the place of birth. I believe the example the Hawaiian official gave was that if he were born in Bali the Hawaiian certificate would say that. Why the Hawaiians have this system I can’t say. But as the official stated the actual place of birth is named. Many people who bring this up ignore that interview. Perhaps someone here can tell you where to find it so you can verify.
Gald to hear it’s “only a theory” Because the problems with your theory are that the birth announcements in the two Hawaiian newspapers were information reported to the newspapers by the Health Dept, not advertisements or personals placed by individuals. Hawaiian hospitals were never “known” for giving out birth certificates to people not born there. If you have evidence that the Obamas did not live with the Dunhams, please cite for us. I don’t know where you read or dreamed up this happy horsesh!t, but it has no basis in fact. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. Hope this clears things up for you.
“Pathetic my dear friend, truly pathetic.” NBC
Something about this sentence must be less than the truth.
“Fascinating, [Ann Dunham Obama] guilty until proven innocent. WAYK has no legs to stand on.” NBC
Given that Ann Dunham Obama is no longer alive then her perjury, which Hawaii considered a twenty-year felony in 1964, is now a dispute of fact rather than subject to law, and to be assessed by the preponderance of the evidence (50%+). On the matter of Ann Dunham Obama’s domicile the presumption in law follows the place of actual residence. Ann Dunham Obama lived from August 1961 in the State of Washington; consequently under 1961 Washington law her domicile was Kenya, this being her husband’s domicile. The burden of proof in law falls on those claiming the contrary.
“…no implications…” NBC
A court will easily connect the dots.
Of course, Ann Dunham Obama’s son could spare his mother’s memory by doing the decent thing.
As predictable, this is just about harassing Obama. Sad, truly sad, to have wild speculations presented as ‘factual’.
Good luck my dear friend.
WAYK: You must counter an argument with appropriate detail, not dismiss it with tangential recollection.
Now that’s rich… There is no evidence that Stanley Ann lied, at best a lack of recollection of an event which happened 45+ years ago.
Refusal of Truth Forfeits Logic.
The truth is that Constitution Fan, without any basis in fact assumes, in a highly emotional diatribe frothing with contempt, that:
1 WAYK Hates Obama (which is not true: it’s not personal, the same facts in ANY de facto President’s family background (European, Hispanic, Israeli etc) would elicit the same arguments);
2 WAYK votes Republican or thinks conservative (WAYK’s politics are a private matter of conscience and not of public record anywhere, but this will be stated: neither political party has all the answers nor are their respective members all bad).
3 WAYK belongs to a crowd (WAYK has never joined any political group, formal or informal);
4 WAYK supported the Bush administration on Iraq and WMD (laughable, were these events not so bungling, catastrophic, shameful, and sad beyond words);
5 WAYK blames Democrats alone for the financial meltdown (both parties share culpability for the destruction of safeguards and integrity in our economy);
6 WAYK has “been defeated by a black man” (neither God nor history plays a favorite when it comes to race and to suggest otherwise is to be a scoundrel, and a fool, and we can hope this delusion will be judged appropriately by both).
Had Constitution Fan actually read back through the discussion then CF may not have summoned the temerity to post such spluttering and insulting drivel as above.
Generally:
1 Who FactCheck.org are is of little importance; whether what they photographed is bogus or not is for another discussion and perhaps law enforcement; however, the procedure by which they “validated” Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is inadmissible in court under currrent rules, about as useful in court as a bogus COLB, and therefore only convincing to true believers.
2 Hawaii Governor Lingle is in no position to “validate” Obama’s COLB (if it exists), as her Office readily admits: “the Governor’s office…[cannot] provide information concerning birth certificates, or produce birth certificates”. Further, Lingle’s opinion about Obama’s COLB (if it exists) carries no extra weight in a court of law.
3 It is illegal for Hawaii Department of Health authorities to say more than what they have put on record: that DoH verifies it has on file Obama’s original birth certificate. What TYPE that original birth certificate may be is presently unknown and from this arises the controversy.
4 Given Obama is on record as possessing and must have used a long form birth certificate prior to COLBs being issued in November 2001 it seems very odd that he did not post online an image of this document instead; given only Obama (or family member) could have ordered a COLB from Hawaii is seems equally odd that neither the accompanying envelope nor the financial transaction was also placed in the public domain as corroboration.
“…two newspapers, who pulled their live birth announcements…and address of the parents from the Dept of Vital Statistics at the Hawaii Health Department…”
Constitution Fan’s opinion may count for more when some impression is given of having read back through this discussion.
WAYK Constitution Fan’s opinion may count for more when some impression is given of having read back through this discussion.
Irony alert.
Obama’s step grandmother said he was born in Hawaii, but the tape of her conversation was manipulated (edited) to say otherwise. Obama’s uncle makes it clear that the President was never in Kenya until he was an adult. If anyone tells you that an Obama relative says he was born in Kenya, then they have some entirely new information, or they’re blowing smoke. The President’s actual Kenyan grandparents are long dead.
The approach is to assassinate the character of Obama’s mother, turn her into a liar, and then “wonder” what else she lied about. The crank legal theory is that if she lied about the address (on a form which is not public knowledge), then the COLB is no longer prima facie evidence. At least that’s how I parse it.
WAYK’s doubts here are inconsistent with Hawaiian law. Articles here on the web site for the reading.
WAYK’s opinions are way out of wack with reality in general. Fascinating how some find it necessary to mingle fantasy with reality to make the latter one bearable.
Yes, it seems that WAYK was proposing that Obama may resign to prevent his mother’s memories being dragged through the mud.
What a sad observation.
Why does BO’s say, “date filed” when other COLB’s from Hawaii say, “date accepted?”
I think it’s because Toot reported BO’s birth and the State of Hawaii filed it but did not accept it.
The Hawaii newspapers took the birth report and published it. Now, America is expected to believe BO is NBC because his grandmother wanted BO to have American citizenship.
Sven, ignorant of the facts, asks: “Why does BO’s say, “date filed” when other COLB’s from Hawaii say, “date accepted?””
The fact is that other Hawaiian birth certificates say “Date Accepted” too. If Obama’s birth registration had not been “accepted”, as you fantasize, then the COLB wouldn’t have been issued and certified by the state. State VR systems have various statuses and flags associated with with birth records (that the record is “pending” or that the record is sealed, or modified, or amended, or corrected, or adopted) and unless all the flags are in “alignment”, no certificate is printed.
The fact of the matter is that the COLB is prima facie evidence of the facts it contains. Unless you understand the basic principles of what a birth certificate is, then you will wander off into flights of silliness. See the following article, which at the end shows the image of another COLB saying “date filed”.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Why don’t you write to Hawaii and ask? Here’s the email: vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
I’m sure there is an easy, logical explanation.
I didn’t dream up any happy horseshit as you put it, it’s only a thought that crossed my mind because I don’t trust this guy, he lies like there is no tomorrow. And someone how because you say he was born in Hawaii that makes it fact? So no it doesn’t clear anything up, I did say he may well have been born in Hawaii, but I think I will always have my doubts about him because of the crap he shovels at us everyday. I have wonder why he simply doesn’t just release his long form birth certificate, that would pretty much clear it up for me, but he won’t. I also wonder why he refused to release his college records in New York, he seems to me he is hiding something, maybe not his US citizenship but maybe something else. And when he stands there on national tv last night and says “I mean it my health care plan will cause no deficits!” Anyone who would believe this horseshit needs their head examined. No one can make such a promise especially someone who hasn’t read his own bill he’s shoving down our throats.
List for us the former Presidents for whom you have personally seen and examined a copy of their birth certificate, college records, medical records and financial records. For which former Presidents have you seen and touched a passport? Why do you seem to need more for Pres Obama?
If you don’t like his policies work harder to get your guy elected next time. Right now, it’s Pres Obama’s turn and I support his efforts to reform health care. If you like having your premiums double every 5 years and don’t mind your out of pocket costs going up double digits, you will be able to keep what you have. In the meantime get out of the way of the rest of us who can’t afford it.
And someone how because you say he was born in Hawaii that makes it fact?
Hawaii said he was born in Hawaii.
John McCain produced his long form birth certificate and all the necessary documentation. Sadly this last election there was no choice at all for a worthy candidate for Pres. Health care is not a right at the expense of stealing other peoples money to pay for it. If you like standing in long lines like the DMV and waiting 2yrs to get a MRI and treatment like they do in Canada and rationed care, then welcome to socialized medicine. Government care will be more costly than anything we have now and the care you get will be far worse than what you receive now. If this universal care is so great then why doesn’t every pol in D.C. step up to the plate and get on their universal plan? Are willing to pay for a truck drivers gas when he spends $400/mo. on gas for his deliveries and you may only spend $50? Or are you willing to pay for your neighbors electricity because they can’t afford it? More government is not the answer it’s the problem.
John McCain produced his long form birth certificate and all the necessary documentation.
Are you sure? Care to back that up with a cite?
And you have many policies complaints, which are of course a legitimate source of criticism. None of that, however, has to do with eligibility.
Seems that 2112 is confusing government run healthcare with a public options. Ignorance runs deep.
His COLB says he was born in Hawaii.
Two newspaper birth announcements say he was born in Hawaii.
What do you have?
Let me try this.
BO’s COLB is prima facie evidence of a filing and other COLBs from Hawaii I’ve seen on the net are prima facie evidence of a birth registration being accepted.
Isnt’ it true Hawaii indicates a birth registered by an adult who witnessed the birth in Hawaii other than a hospital or with a midwife as “filed” and not “accepted?”
Isn’t it true BO was not born in a hospital?
Isnt’ it true Hawaii indicates a birth registered by an adult who witnessed the birth in Hawaii other than a hospital or with a midwife as “filed” and not “accepted?”
Rather than asking a question, try rephasing this as a statement, and then providing a citation to support your assertion.
Isn’t it true BO was not born in a hospital?
You tell us… Of course, whether born in a Hospital or not, he was, per COLB born in the US. If you believe the information to be wrong, then present your evidence.
There is no credible evidence.
Simple
That would mean supporting an actual assertion?… The thought makes many a birther shiver. Facts are not welcome.
“Seems that 2112 is confusing government run healthcare with a public options”
The only ignorance is this ignorant comment that makes absolutely no sense. Ignorance really does run deep for those who can’t understand simple logic, like Obama who says: “with my plan there will be absolutely no deficits and I mean it!” Right.
2112: The only ignorance is this ignorant comment that makes absolutely no sense. Ignorance really does run deep for those who can’t understand simple logic, like Obama who says: “with my plan there will be absolutely no deficits and I mean it!” Right.
Note how 2112 is now shifting the goalposts because he/she cannot defend the obvious defects in the argument.
Having established that it was ignorance not fact guiding her/him to make this unfortunate comment, she/he now continues to suggest that Obama’s pledge that any healthcare bill will have to be budget neutral is somehow impossible, illogical or impractical. And yet, again, when taking into consideration all the costs and benefits, it seems that such a plan which includes a public option, no more pre-existing conditions and access to healthcare for all US citizens, is well within the realm of possibilities.
And that must scare people like 2112…
So you dodged my question. Apparently you are conceding you have never personally, physically seen the birth certificate, the school records, the financial or medical records for any one of the 43 former Presidents. Not even one of the 39 deceased ones for which it might be easier to find with a visit to one of their libraries. So why do you want Pres Obama treated differently? As for your other issues with Pres Obama, your remedy is in the voting booth. Work harder to get your own guy elected next time.
By the way 2112, anyone who doesn’t know the difference between government run health care and a public option should not be trying to debate health care policy. You’ve switched from regurgitating what you read on a birther site to what you read on a health insurance industry talking points site.
“So we agree that you were wrong about healthcare under Obama being run by the government and want to discuss now the suggestion that the program may not be budget neutral.”
No. Nothing I said is wrong concerning his failing healthcare plan.
“As I have pointed out, this is a promise, a pledge and it is up to those who argue that the program does, to show that there will be an effect on the deficit.”
No. It’s up to those proposing a proven failed socialized healthcare system, (which history shows it is worse than our healthcare now, look at Canada or England) to prove there will be no effect on the deficit.
Sadly there are those who actually do choose to spend their money on unnecessary items instead of feeding their own children. For those who truly cannot afford it, there is a thing called charity, which since I started working most months I give away a 10th of my income to help those less fortunate. Which is why it’s demeaning for the government to steal my or anyone else’s money to pay for things it has no business being involved in.
“Chicken Words”
Trying to be fair concerning his eligibility despite I don’t trust him and have doubts, you feel the need to personally attack me. Mature.
2112: No. Nothing I said is wrong concerning his failing healthcare plan.
Other than what was wrong?
2112: No. It’s up to those proposing a proven failed socialized healthcare system, (which history shows it is worse than our healthcare now, look at Canada or England) to prove there will be no effect on the deficit.
In fact, by most standards US healthcare is far worse. But that’s just details isn’t it.
Proposing a public option is hardly the same as socialized healthcare.
2112: Sadly there are those who actually do choose to spend their money on unnecessary items instead of feeding their own children.
Pathetic.
2112: For those who truly cannot afford it, there is a thing called charity, which since I started working most months I give away a 10th of my income to help those less fortunate. Which is why it’s demeaning for the government to steal my or anyone else’s money to pay for things it has no business being involved in.
Sure, let’s have these people beg for their food and rely on the charity of others to perhaps help them. And despite this charity millions of children go to bed hungry. Something is wrong.
2112: “Chicken Words”
Trying to be fair concerning his eligibility despite I don’t trust him and have doubts, you feel the need to personally attack me. Mature.
I am not attacking you personally, just your claim which is an example of non committal response.
Let me educate you a bit
Socialized Medicine/healthcare: The original meaning was confined to systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals.
Public Option: Government provides for a health insurance option.
As to standards of health care
Source: Wikipedia
2112, why did you change the subject?
Tell me for which of the 43 former Presidents have you personally physically seen their birth certificate, financial, medical and educational records. Tick Tock.
As for this:
“since I started working most months I give away a 10th of my income to help those less fortunate. ”
May I refer you to Matt 6:1-4. Didn’t anyone every teach you not to brag about what you give?
Warning: all this healthcare stuff is destined for the off topic dump when I get the time.
Thanks Doc, I just get annoyed by those who seem to be ill informed on matters
“Sadly this last election there was no choice at all for a worthy candidate for Pres.”
I beg to differ- happily there were two candidates far more qualified and respectable than our previous President. I could have voted for McCain if the Democrats candidate was a real loser.
“Health care is not a right at the expense of stealing other peoples money to pay for it.”
So you are ready to kick off all the people on Medicaid and Medicare?
“If you like standing in long lines like the DMV and waiting 2yrs to get a MRI and treatment like they do in Canada and rationed care, then welcome to socialized medicine.”
By any relevant measurement, the healthcare in Canada is superior to the United States. They have longer life spans and lower infant mortality rates. I have Canadian friends(who used to live in the U.S.) who are thrilled with Canad
ian healthcare. And it costs, per capita, half of what the U.S. system costs.
“If this universal care is so great then why doesn’t every pol in D.C. step up to the plate and get on their universal plan? ”
Every congressman in D.C. is already on this plan. They have a superb publicly financed program- what most would call a ‘single payer’ system. I haven’t heard of any of them complain about their medical care.
“More government is not the answer it’s the problem.”
Should Fire Departments be privatized? Should Fire Engines only protect those who pay for Fire Protection? There are certain services like Defense and Fire Protection that everyone agrees should be publically financed. But with healthcare, where you have an automatic conflict between profits and patient care, there are those who think we must have a for profit system.
Do I think Obama ‘lied’ in saying that a government competing insurance program(not public health program) will increase the deficit? No, I think he was being purposely overly optimistic.
Show me his pattern of clear lies. Please, I dare you.
Kimba,
I don’t know what bible you read, but what it does say is this
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven”
It was a point of ref. that the government has no right to take my money other anyone else’s to pay for someone else’s healthcare. It’s up to us and the church to help others, not government.
I must have touched a nerve since you feel the need to personally attack me.
Oh please don’t dump it all. I just get tired of this spewing of misinformation. I know you don’t want the debate diverted but really this thread is already an old one.
2112: It was a point of ref. that the government has no right to take my money other anyone else’s to pay for someone else’s healthcare. It’s up to us and the church to help others, not government.
It’s called taxation and the government has all the right to ask everyone to contribute to the well being of this country and its citizens.
Bummer eh
“…if [Ann Dunham Obama] lied about the address (on a form which is not public knowledge), then the COLB is no longer prima facie evidence.” Dr Conspiracy
“…crank legal theory…” Dr C
First, “if…then” is NOT an accurate or fair statement of WAYK’s argument. The COLB (if it exists) is demonstrably NOT prima facie evidence – whether or not Ann Dunham Obama lied under oath. As shown on previous pages, under Federal Rules of Evidence #301, alternative logical conclusions drawn from the same evidence rebuts a prima facie presumption: the COLB’s presumption would fail in court right here. Under FRE Rules 106, 1001, 1002, and 1003 Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is not a true duplicate of the original record (#1001 and #1003), not complete (#106), and not best evidence (#1002). If these Rules of Evidence were truly inapplicable, and merely the last refuge of a crank, then someone who knows better, perhaps even Dr C himself, would easily have shown how they could not possibly apply. After repeated invitations this still hasn’t yet occurred, for which we should be grateful: the day when the Federal Rules of Evidence are reduced to a “crank legal theory” is the end of justice in America.
Second, Ann Dunham Obama’s perjury means that any legal document or proceedings associated with her, including Obama’s original 1961 birth record, must be treated with great suspicion and certainly cannot presume to truth or prima facie status. In law, the burden of proof falls on those who claim that Ann Dunham Obama did not lie under oath when she swore that she was domiciled in Hawaii between August 1961 and January or March 1964. If this can’t be proved, the correct inference in law must be that Ann Dunham Obama committed perjury.
Third, “on a form which is not public knowledge”: this formulation by Dr C is taken by WAYK to suggest that we do not have Obama’s original 1961 birth record and so cannot know if the address “6085 Kalanianaole Highway” given as the “Mother’s Address” is an actual lie or not. If the address did not reach the newspapers that published it via Hawaii Vital Records (for which claim there is absolutely no evidence), how else was it placed there ? Paid for by a family member ? If not paid for by Ann Dunham Obama, why not and what could this imply ?
Four, didn’t Obama denounce Grandmother Dunham as a racist WHILE SHE WAS STILL ALIVE ? Didn’t Obama say Grandmother Dunham was a “typical white person” who “once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe” ? What term would characterize these remarks ? To what end were they deployed ?
Didn’t Obama’s closest advisors (today serving loyally in the White House) contrive to have UNSEALED the confidential legal divorce records of a Democratic political rival in Illinois (Blair Hull http://tinyurl.com/NYT-BHO-Hull ) so that private family issues could used by the media to smear Hull personally and catapult Obama into the 2004 Democratic nomination for the US Senate ? What term would characterize these tactics ? To what end were they deployed ? Are two examples enough ?
In the first instance we only have Obama’s word that his unprecedented exploitation of his own Grandmother was true, in the second instance we have spousal allegations about Obama’s political rival painfully dredged from the secret recesses of a divorce. Regarding Ann Dunham Obama’s perjury we have public fact and law. If the accusations he made against his own Grandmother are any guide, Obama is unlikely to spare his mother’s reputation, and obviate the necessity for lawsuits through transparency.
Fed. R. Evid. 902(1).
WAYK: The COLB (if it exists) is demonstrably NOT prima facie evidence
It says so on the document… Sigh… You are repeating the same old nonsense I rebutted before.
There are no alternative explanations or evidence to the contrary that indicates that the information on the document is false or in error.
ftroit : INA 301 (g) in 1961 would NOT make an American citizen any legitimate child whose American mother at the time of birth did NOT have 10 years US residency, with 5 years occuring after the age of 14 ie 19. Ann Dunham Obama was 18 when she gave birth to her legitimate son. Obama Jr would not have been a American citizen at birth if he was born anywhere outside the US.
And there is no evidence of such.
Next.
You still didn’t answer the question. So you’ve never seen the birth certificate, school, financial, medical records of ANY of the 43 former Presidents. Why do you want to see Pres Obama’s?
King James (2000) Mat6:1-4 It’s about alms, and not telling everyone what a good alms-giver you are.
“WAYK’s doubts here are inconsistent with Hawaiian law.” Dr C
WAYK’s only reference that might involve Hawaii law was to what either Governor Lingle or Hawaii DoH authorities can legally say. In fact these authorities have said no more than I have written. Hawaii DoH Public Relations Officer Janice Okubo (not quite an authority) said: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image [“COLB”] on the site [Obama’s own Fightthesmears.com] represents.” If Hawaii law allows authorities to release more information without reference to Obama then Hawaii DoH are being very protective. If it’s something else maybe Dr C could be more forthcoming.
“Irony alert.” NBC
The only irony here would be if WAYK hadn’t contributed to the discussion and hadn’t read every contribution. Not true, therefore no irony. Simple English.
“There is no evidence that Stanley Ann lied” NBC
The presumption in law is that residence equals domicile. Ann Dunham Obama, State of Washington, resident from August 1961: these facts equate to prima facie perjury by Ann Dunham Obama committed during her divorce proceedings, a twenty year felony in 1961. Serious, eh ?
Only evidence of domicile in Hawaii during this period avoids the legal conclusion. NBC the Great Rebutter’s detailed rebutting evidence is…?
“It says [prima facie] on the document [COLB image]….nonsense I rebutted before” NBC
Complete and rebut this: A prima facie presumption is NOT EVIDENCE in itself but a legal technicality that is only sufficient until challenged with some contrary evidence. The standard applied in Federal courts is….
Actually, NBC is not really in a position to rebut much. That’s just make believe. For example, NBC didn’t know what Rule 301 meant until WAYK explained it to him.
Then again, maybe NBC was incapable of understanding the explanation and still suffers from the delusion that he “rebutted” WAYK’s argument. Anyone can go back to the previous page and confirm the reality for themselves. Unless, of course, NBC would care to show right here where WAYK went wrong with Rule 301 ?
Whatever it is that motivates NBC to constantly haunt these pages with INSTANT one or two sentence, improvised putdowns it certainly isn’t the truth or rationality. They are to be stepped on and stepped over to further the supreme interests of the Cause: which is the very definition of fanaticism, whoever’s doing it. People like WAYK are just in the way.
Anyhow, there is no “document” (COLB), only online images: NBC only knows what he has been told, and true believer that he is, he’s not questioning higher authority. It doesn’t require much intelligence to do that.
The presumption in law is that residence equals domicile.
If this presumption is actually true, it should be no problem for you to cite it.
And none of this disproves the validity of the COLB.
“FRE 902(1)” Bob
We certainly expect and demand that Obama’s COLB (if it exists), and should it ever be produced in a court of law, is authentic in terms of FRE 902(1) !
Unfortunately Bob shows very little understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence if he imagines that FRE 902(1) renders Rules 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003 inoperative with regard to Obama’s COLB (if it exists).
Assuming Bob is interested in a mature, truthful, and rational discussion, and he really does believe that Rules 106, 301, 401, 1001, 1002, and 1003 can not apply as described by WAYK when confronted in court by FRE 902(1), could he outline how this might be ?
Bob may like to read earlier pages to save himself time and embarrassment.
A prima facie presumption is NOT EVIDENCE in itself but a legal technicality that is only sufficient until challenged with some contrary evidence.
Then produce some competent evidence.
(And if you are going cite a neighbor not remembering or post-birth divorce degree, you’ll also have to explain how that actually contradicts the COLB.)
Mature discussion does not include discussion of your opponent’s maturity.
“…it should be no problem for you to cite.” Bob
US.-E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Bymes, C.C.A.N.Y., 4 101 F.2d 14.
Ariz.-Jizmejian v. Jizmejian, 492 P.2d 1208, 16 ArizApp. 270.
0r.Stewart v. Stewart, 242 P. 852, 117 Or. 157.
Ma.-Nora v. Nora, 494 So.2d 16.
Ky.-Burr’s Adm’r v. Hatter, 43 S.W.2d 26, 240 Ky. 721.
Md.-Pattison v. Firor, 126 A. 109, 146 Md. 243.
W.Va.-First Nat. Bank v. Tate, 178 S.E. 807, 116 W.Va. 138.
N.J.-In re Gilbert’s Estate, 15 A.2d 111, 18 N.J.Misc. 540.
La.-Barrow v. Barrow, 106 So. 705, 160 La. 91.
Pa.-In re Hood, 21 Pa. 106.
Tex.-Dodd v. Dodd, Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 686.
“Then produce some competent evidence.” Bob
I don’t think Bob is even reading up or down this page, never mind going back through the discussion.
Under Rule 301 ANY evidence that leads to a LOGICAL conclusion alternative to the conclusion of fact which a court is being asked to presume consequently rebuts the presumption of the fact. That makes perfect legal sense: it would be unsafe to make a presumption about what constitutes a fact if that fact has another explanation. For example, until we have some evidence to the contrary, WAYK presumes that Bob is interested in a mature and rational discussion on the topic of whether the “Mother’s Address” entered in Obama Jr’s original birth record is genuine; contrary evidence might be, for instance, Bob asking questions that have been asked on this or earlier pages, or unequivocal statements outside this discussion that the topic here is already settled without need for more discussion.
Evidence that would lead to an alternative logical conclusion in the matter of Obama’s COLB (if it exists) would be: 1 The original TYPE of record which registered Obama Jr’s birth is unknown. 2 The IDENTITY of whoever registered Obama Jr’s birth is unknown. 3 The precise LOCATION of Obama Jr’s birth is unknown. 4 The near certainty that neither Ann Dunham Obama, nor her husband, nor her parent’s ever lived at the “Mother’s Address” entered into Obama Jr’s original birth record. 5 The concealment by members of the Dunham family from other family, friends, authors, and interviewers over decades that Ann Dunham Obama was resident in the State of Washington within three weeks of the registration of Obama Jr’s birth (Rules 803 and 804: hearsay exception).
Unless Bob (and Obama’s attorneys) can manipulate these facts in such a way that it is IMPOSSIBLE to logically (note: LOGICALLY, NOT FACTUALLY – I presume Bob grasps the difference) construct these facts in any other way except that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 then, in court, the prima facie presumption of Obama’s COLB (if it exists) evaporates without residue like a bursting bubble. The relevance in court of these facts under FRE Rule 401 has been demonstrated by WAYK on earlier pages.
The further application of Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 1001, 1002, and 1003 does NOT require that plaintiffs “produce some competent evidence”. Under the Rules Bob (and Obama’s attorneys) must persuade the court that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is a true duplicate of the original record (#1001 and #1003), is complete (#106), and is best evidence (#1002); if this cannot be done (as it patently cannot, read back) then Obama Jr’s original 1961 birth record will be required in court. It’s very noticeable that Bob has nothing to say with regard to these Rules.
Elsewhere on this page WAYK has already given his position with regard the “neighbor”, so why does Bob ask, unless Bob hasn’t read it.
The significance of Ann Dunham Obama lying under oath is that it means that any document with which she is associated (eg a birth certificate) is highly suspect and cannot be accepted prima facie; if Ann Dunham Obama didn’t register her son’s birth this too raises issues which mean Obama’s COLB (if it exists) cannot be accorded prima facie status.
The presumption in law is that residence equals domicile.
As I said there is no evidence that Stanley Ann lied wrt the address on the birth announcement so WAYK responds with his belief that Stanley Ann somehow lied in her divorce application.
Desperate times.
The issue of Stanley’s residence is irrelevant.
The COLB is prima facie evidence of Obama’s birth and as a matter of law can only be overcome with DIRECT evidence that refutes the basic facts as to time and place of birth. The burden to overcome the presumption is, at a minimum, by a preponderence of evidence- so that would require either documentation of equal or greater weight and reliability as the COLB, and/or in-court sworn testimony of witnesses with direct, actual knowledge of the circumstances of Obama’s birth. (Not rumor, not hearsay – but someone who was there at the time and can attest to actual facts).
Nothing else is legally relevant or admissible.
WAYK: “Under Rule 301 ANY evidence that leads to a LOGICAL conclusion alternative to the conclusion of fact which a court is being asked to presume consequently rebuts the presumption of the fact.”
However, WAYK has not offered any evidence whatever that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii in 1961, not one mote of such evidence. For the determination of President Obama eligibility, the residence address of his mother, and whether she reported it accurately on a form that she may or may not have filled out, is irrelevant. WAYK is playing a shell game by trying to use “the fact” to mean two different things. In the one case “the fact” refers to the location of Stanley Ann’s residence, and in the other case “the fact” refers to the place of birth of Barack Obama. Impugning one (which I don’t concede has been impugned) does not impugn the other. And in the case of the COLB, the mother’s residence is not even on the COLB!
The irrelevant conclusion that WAYK draws is not the LOGICAL conclusion, but an implausible theoretical possibility. Most likely, the birth announcement address is accurate. If it is not accurate, then most likely there was a clerical error in the newspaper report. That Obama’s mother lied on the mother’s worksheet is the least plausible of the scenarios and, even if true, has no application to the veracity of the facts of birth (location and time) on the Birth Certificate.
WAYK goes on to say: “Under Rule 301 ANY evidence that leads to a LOGICAL conclusion alternative to the conclusion of fact which a court is being asked to presume consequently rebuts the presumption of the fact.” WAYK, you’ve seen the “long form”. Is the parent’s signature on there? The signatures on the form come from the doctor, or in the case of a delivery elsewhere from a witness. You cannot impugn the testimony of the doctor or the witness by impugning what the mother said.
I hate wasting my time responding to the incoherent ramblings of WAYK… but I have to point out that the statement, “ANY evidence that leads to a LOGICAL conclusion alternative to the conclusion of fact which a court is being asked to presume consequently rebuts the presumption of the fact.” – is a misstatement of the law.
WAYK is arguing for the “bursting bubble” approach to rebutting a presumption, which was specifically rejected in the drafting of Rule 301:
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93-650.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule301.htm
Notes of Conference Committee, House Report No. 93-1597.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule301.htm
What my above post means (in plain English).
Legally, “prima facie” evidence creates a presumption that the fact is true – thus the COLB creates a presumption that Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu.
WAYK seems to claim that Rule 301 provides presumption could be rebutted merely by the introduction of any sort of contravening evidence, but that is not true.
Here is what would happen in a legal proceeding IF some birther plaintiff managed to get past the standing issue. The plaintiff would have the burden of going forward with the evidence at the trial as well as the burden of proof by a preponderence of evidence. However, the defense (Obama) would likely make a motion for summary judgment, submitting the COLB as prima facie evidence.
The plaintiff would have to respond to that motion. If they failed to respond with admissible, relevant evidence, they would lose because of the presumption afforded the prima facie evidence.
If, however, the case survived a summary judgment motion and came to trial, the plaintiff would have the burden of going forward with the evidence. The COLB could be introduced in evidence by the defense, and even if the plaintiff had produced half a dozen witnesses claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in another country — the judge or jury could still determine that Obama was born in Hawaii, based on the COLB alone, if they felt that it was more reliable or convincing than the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses.
(Obviously the issue of where Ann Dunham lived in Hawaii at the time is irrelevant and no such evidence would be allowed — since it does not in any way negate the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.)
“…it should be no problem for you to cite…” Bob
The following citations establish a) current residence as prima facie domicile in persisting federal law and b) the standard of evidence APPLIED in federal courts to rebut the presumption. The standard of proof as APPLIED in federal courts to rebut a prima facie presumption of domicile is HIGHER that the standard to rebut a legal presumption ie Obama’s COLB (if it exists): which is to say, NOT Rule 301 FRE or Thayer – see point 6.
1 “The place where a person lives is taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary … although the wife may be residing in another place, the domicile of the husband is her domicile… Even where a wife is living apart from her husband, without sufficient cause [divorce application], his domicile is in law her domicile.”
US Supreme Court, Anderson v. Watts, 138 U. S. 694 (1891)
2 “Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make the place of residence one’s home, are the essential elements of domicile…. While one’s statements may supply evidence of the intention requisite to establish domicile at a given place of residence, they cannot supply the fact of residence there, and they are of slight weight when they conflict with the fact…the actual fact of the place of residence and the person’s real attitude and intention with respect to it as disclosed by his course of conduct are the controlling factors in ascertaining his domicile. When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences, whether intended or not… Physical facts of residence, united with major life interests may fix domicile — one’s ‘preeminent headquarters.’ ”
U.S. Supreme Court, State of Texas v State of Florida 306 US 398 424 (1939)
3 “The place where a man lives is, prima facie, his domicile.”
U.S. Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941)
4 “…the place of residence is prima facie the domicile…”
US Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Stine v. Moore 213 F2d 446 (1954)
5 “To acquire a domicil of choice, the law requires the physical presence of a person at the place of the domicil claimed, coupled with the intention of making it his present home. When these two facts concur, the change in domicil is instantaneous. Intention to live permanently at the claimed domicil is not required. If a person capable of making his choice honestly regards a place as his present home, the motive prompting him is immaterial…there is no question that until May 17, 1961, the plaintiff was and had been a citizen of Nebraska. But there also is no question, in view of the stipulation, that on that date the plaintiff moved with her entire family of six minor children to Newton, Kansas, and that the plaintiff “was living there with her family” … Although a court is not required to believe an interested witness’ uncontradicted testimony which it regards as unreasonable or improbable…we find no such unreasonable or improbable basis present in this record…The only permissible conclusion is that the plaintiff became a citizen of the State of Kansas when she and her family took up residence there in May.”
US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, Janzen v Goos 302 F.2d 421, 425 (1962)
6 “Several Supreme Court cases reiterate the basic tests for establishing [domicile], but do not state the requisite burden of proof for establishing a change of domicile. In McNutt 298 U.S. at 189 in determining whether the amount in controversy satisfied the [domicile] requirement, the Court directly and specifically set forth preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard of proof…[This] is also consistent with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit … [In] Perez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348, 351 (1st Cir. 2004) …’the court concluded once a party’s domicile is challenged, the party invoking diversity jurisdiction must prove domicile by a preponderance of the evidence, even if a party is alleging a new domicile.’ ”
US Court Of Appeals Third Circuit, US McCann v Newman Trust 458 F.3d 281 (2006)
7 “In all civil proceedings, the effect of a presumption respecting a fact which is an element of a claim or defense as to which federal law supplies the rule of decision is determined in accordance with federal law.”
Hawaii Revised Statutes 0626-0001-0302
“COLB is prima facie evidence…and as a matter of law can only be overcome with DIRECT evidence” Expelliarmus
We will take more seriously Expelliarmus’ protests that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) remains unchallengeable in court as prima facie evidence (because “the burden to overcome the [prima facie] presumption is, at a minimum, by a preponderance of evidence…”) when an AUTHORITY IS CITED by Expelliarmus which supports his claim.
WAYK has previously cited AUTHORITIES, not merely his own opinion, on this matter, and cites two more AUTHORITIES below. Until we see an AUTHORITY cited by Expelliarmus we are free to regard his protests as nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions about something he doesn’t like and doesn’t want to admit.
US Sheridan v Dupont 1996 Us Court Of Appeals Third Circuit, Circuit Judge ALITO, concurring and dissenting:-
“Burdine states that the term ‘presumption’ properly ‘refers only to a device for allocating the production burden,’ 450 U.S. at 254 n.8 — the orthodox ‘bursting bubble’ view. Second, both Burdine and Hicks employ classic ‘bursting bubble’ language to describe what happens to a presumption if the defendant satisfies its production burden: the presumption then ‘drops from the case,’ ‘drops out of the picture,’ is ‘no longer relevant,’ and should not be ‘resurrect[ed].’ Third, Burdine’s footnote 10, which was quoted above, appears to set out the pure ‘bursting bubble’ theory: once the presumption is burst, all that remains is ‘the plaintiff’s initial evidence’ and ‘inferences properly drawn therefrom.’ 450 U.S. at 255 n.10. In addition, this footnote begins with a citation to Thayer, who stated that once the opponent of a presumption offers sufficient counterproof, ‘[all is then turned into an ordinary question of evidence, and the two or three general facts presupposed in the rule of presumption take their place with the rest, and operate, with their own natural force, as a part of the total mass of probative matter.’ James B. Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence 346 (1898). Finally, both Burdine and Hicks invoke Federal Rule of Evidence 301, which has generally been interpreted as embodying the ‘bursting bubble’ theory…
…all of the panel members agreed that the McDonnell Douglas presumption and Federal Rule of Evidence 301 embody the ‘bursting bubble’ theory. Writing for the majority, Judge Lewis concluded that the McDonnell Douglas presumption is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 301 and that under this rule ‘the introduction of evidence to rebut a presumption destroys that presumption, leaving only that evidence and its inferences to be judged against the competing evidence and its inferences to determine the ultimate question at issue.’
…I think that the most reasonable interpretation of Rule 301 is that it incorporates the ‘bursting bubble’ theory. The text of the rule supports this conclusion since it does not even hint that a presumption does anything but shift the burden of production. If Congress had intended for a presumption to have any further effect, such as guaranteeing that the presumed fact would not be rejected at the summary-judgment or judgment-as-a-matter-of-law stage, I think that Congress would have said so in the text of the rule. I do not think that Congress would have left it for the courts to divine, without any clue in the language of the rule, that a presumption should have such an important additional effect…
It is well recognized that under the pure ‘bursting bubble’ theory, once a presumption is destroyed, the proponent of the presumption has no guarantee that its case will go to the trier of fact. One treatise states that the previously presumed fact may then be found ‘only if the natural probative force of the basic facts that brought the presumption into play is sufficient to support such a finding (or the evidence as a whole supports it). Otherwise, the presumed fact may not be found, and the presumption does not protect this possibility.’ …Another observes: “The opponent of the presumption may still not be entitled to a directed verdict, but if its motion is denied, the ruling will have nothing to do with the existence of a presumption…’ …In Thayer’s words, after the presumption is spent, ‘[a]ll is then turned into an ordinary question of evidence.’ ”
US McCann v Newman Trust United States Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit 2006:-
“Under Fed. R. Evid. 301, a presumption in a civil case imposes the burden of production on the party against whom it is directed, but does not shift the burden of persuasion. We have interpreted Rule 301 to express the Thayer-Wigmore “bursting bubble” theory of presumptions… Under this theory, ‘the introduction of evidence to rebut a presumption destroys that presumption, leaving only that evidence and its inferences to be judged against the competing evidence and its inferences to determine the ultimate question at issue.’ In other words, the presumption shifts the burden of producing sufficient evidence to rebut the presumed fact. Once that burden is met, the presumption “disappears from the case.” (Note…in saying the presumption drops from the case, we do not imply the trier of fact can no longer consider the evidence that initially gave rise to the presumption.) This view of Rule 301 is widely accepted. See, e.g., In re Yoder Co., 758 F.2d 1114, 1119 (6th Cir. 1985) (stating most commentators conclude that under Rule 301, ‘a presumption vanishes entirely once rebutted, and the question must be decided as any ordinary question of fact’…”
Again: And none of this disproves the validity of the COLB.
But of course there is no evidence against the COLB. For all of WAYK’s speculation, nothing in it refers to a single item of data on the COLB.
The Honolulu Advertiser reports
If this holds up, it would be quite a coup…
From what I’ve gathered just recently the birth announcement did not state he was born in Hawaii and could have in fact be announced from anywhere! Meaning the relative would have contacted the health department who would have then contacted the newspaper. Let’s say I’m from Hawaii and My kid was born in Africa while on a short stay. I would of course want to announce it to my hometown. What needs to be looked into is whether it was possible to send an announcement from elsewhere. not directly to the paper but to the department that issues announcements to the paper.
From what I’ve gathered just recently the birth announcement did not state he was born in Hawaii and could have in fact be announced from anywhere!
Both the newspapers said they got the data for all birth announcments from the government.
So you are back to arguing — and then proving — that Obama’s parents lied to the government.
****UPDATE**** ****UPDATE****
Ok I want to correct myself after further reading. This is from another website discussing this issue.
-Anyone who insists that these birth announcements could ONLY have come directly from Vital Records and nowhere else is either ignorant of the ways things are actually done, or is deliberately lying. I spoke with the editors of both papers. I spoke with the Head of Vital Records. All of them confirmed that family members were ALWAYS permitted to submit birth announcements directly to the newspaper, and that they were NEVER crosschecked with official Vital Records. The reason is, “Why?” There is absolutely no need to verify them. A birth announcment is not a legal document and cannot be used in any probative way. It is a total nonissue in comparison to fabricating a government-issued birth certificate.
Anyone who insists that these birth announcements could ONLY have come directly from Vital Records and nowhere else is either ignorant of the ways things are actually done, or is deliberately lying.
Are you calling WND a bunch of liars?
Citation please?
(You really don’t have any credibility at all when you say something came “from another web site” and don’t give a link. Anyone can make up anything and post it on a blog somewhere. Right now all SOURCED statements available confirm that the Honolulu papers received the information for their vital statistics listings directly from the health department. Nothing contradicts that.)
Every day: first thing when I wake up, and the last thing before I go to sleep.
This sounds like the typical birther lie. When the facts are against them, some of them just make up something, like the travel ban to Pakistan, and Maya Soetoro-Ng’s Hawaiian birth certificate.
It is funny that WND has gotten some facts correct (DoH doesn’t destroy records; newspapers did get their data from the state; there is a paper copy of the letter Obama sent to the hospital).
But WND can’t help itself and then spin and distort them.
Whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, would it not be reasonable to assume that there were doctors, nurses, or someone still alive who witnessed the birth. If so, will someone PLEASE find him, her, or them so we can finally put an end to this mystery? There has got to be a hospital record or witness somewhere on earth.
Whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, would it not be reasonable to assume that there were doctors, nurses, or someone still alive who witnessed the birth.
Obama was born nearly 48 years ago. Let’s assume those in the delivery room were 25 years old (but probably actually much older). They would be at least 73 today. At least.
If so, will someone PLEASE find him, her, or them so we can finally put an end to this mystery?
I nominate you. You’ve got your homework; report back with your findings.
By the way: Birth certicates were invented to end these kinds of “mysteries.” Why don’t you believe Hawaii when it says Obama was born there?
I didn’t say that I didn’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but obviously thousands, if not millions still have doubts. No less than a dozen lawsuits have been filed in several states challenging his place of birth and/or requesting his original hospital birth records. Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on these lawsuits.
Many people have asked, “Why did Obama’s campaign refuse to provide a copy of his birth certificate until June 13, 2008; why did he refuse to release his college records and thesis; why all the secrecy”? Anyone running for high office should be subject to an FBI background check just like a school teacher and others. There entire life should be an open book. That would dispel much of the conspiracy theories. We deserve to know everything about all the candidates. There is no document on earth that can’t be forged or put into the public record, if one has friends in high places, but I do believe he was born in Hawaii. I would just like to see all this crap go away.
From the tone of your comments it appears that you don’t care where he was born. That’s even scarier than those who question it.
Ref. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
J Will, there is a LEGAL DOCUMENT that is PROOF of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. It is here:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
The Director of the State Dept of Health in Hawaii has confirmed that it is authentic, twice.
The REASON that birth certificates were invented were because they were more reliable than hunting down witnesses of births, 40+ years down the line.
Keep in mind that any medical professional who has worked in obstetrics has seen hundreds or perhaps thousands of babies born — there’s no particular reason for any one to stand out in their memory years down the line. Also, the labor & delivery staff rarely knows what the parent attends to name their baby, and hospital staff isn’t all that great at remembering the names of their patients either. (They tend to remember diseases or conditions more specifically, the birth of twins at Kapiolani that weekend probably attracted more attention, especially if Obama’s delivery was routine and didn’t require any specialized medical intervention).
“if not millions”
most definitely not millions
“no less than a dozen lawsuits”
all filed by cranks and scammers and all dismissed or about to be
“should be subject to an fbi background check”
you think the fbi is going to release this to you?
“there is no document on earth that can’t be forged or put into the public record”
at least you admit you’ll never be convinced. so tell us again why obama should bother?
“i would just like to see all this crap go away”
it will, when the birfers do
I added a new FactCheck.org article to the Media page, one of two new ones on the site.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/o-rly/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/the-last-word-we-wish/
That should be dozens (plural) of lawsuits. Take a look at the docket page here, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket, for a list of them, and note the consistency of their dismissal. Only one got past the dismissal stage to receive a summary judgment against it.
It should be obvious that the lawsuits are without merit from the fact that none of them went anywhere.
No, that would not be reasonable both because of privacy laws, the age of such people today, and the very real fear of taking a public position on an issue whose opponents are largely nutcases.
OK, others have said this, but I’ll be plain, simple and blunt. No, it’s not reasonable to go around looking for witnesses, that’s what birth certificates are for.
Imagine if we all had to gather a phalanx of witnesses to our birth whenever we needed identification, it would be like the Verizon network crowd at every driver’s license bureau or passport office.
It will not change the fact that Obama’s father is not a US citizen and the real question that should answered by the Supreme Court is what does “natural born citizen” mean. Do you have to have two parents that are US citizens?
No. You don’t. Anyone born here is a natural born citizen regardless of his parents. The two parent thing is an invention. But apparently you have chosen to forget your civics and need someone who think is an authority to tell you. How about House Minority Leader John Boehner? Or Michael Steele?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25572.html
These are the Republican leaders. To them, to the entire Congress, the Electoral College and most American’s, born here = natural born. It’s only birthers still making a fuss. I hope Bobby Jindal is the Repub 2012 Presidential candidate. He’s natural born too.
Actually, a birth certificate is technically the official recording of a witness statement as to the facts of birth. The initial birth record submission is signed by one or more witnesses (generally the physician or midwife attending the birth), and then filed with appropriate authorities, to be preserved for posterity.
So When I present my copy it’s like having those witnesses right there with me? Even if my COLB doesn’t have the witnesses’ signature on it? Would I ever have to be able to tell someone who those witnesses were?
Some outstanding research posted at Defend Our Freedoms (Repubx.com)
Obama had to get the “ballpark” number somewhere, starting with an existing certificate for that year, month and hospital. The number was “out of sequence” by at least 5 numbers. It’s because the Twins had the sequence numbers of 10636 and 10637 and Obama’s is 10641, though he was born BEFORE they were. His number should have been 10635 or less.
By the way, other hospitals in Honolulu have their own set of “birth sequence” numbers – and are not “shared” with Kapiolani.
Here is number from a different hospital 6/20/1961………. #151-61-07236 in Hawaii.
I found one from Kapolani – 1930 .. in the same sequence number range as the one posted on the Obama certificate. It was 10269 and Obama’s is 10641.
That assumes birth certificate numbers were issued by date of birth. Obama was born on Friday, the twins on Sat. It is perfectly conceivable that registrations from births over the weekend were sent in, sorted alphabetically and then birth certificates issued. The fact that 3 people born a day apart have birth certificate numbers only 5 digits apart is more than adequate proof for anyone that he was born when and where he says. Sheesh.
The COLB is an official document which confirms the existence of another official document, which was created and filed only because it was properly witnessed.
The system has been created precisely so that doctors don’t have to be deposed every time some 16 year old kid that they delivered decides he wants a driver’s license.
So essentially it is documentation of the fact that there was a witness to the birth at the time and place specified. (I don’t know what happens for foundlings — if a baby is found abandoned in a trash can and rescued, someday that baby will grow up and also want a driver’s license.)
Not sure the point of the sequence number is, but did you see the comments on that site?
Obama = NWO, Hitler, “death camps”
Paranoia gone mad, these people think Obama is plotting to round them up and send them off to FEMA camps, never to be seen again.
From the tone of your comments it appears that you don’t care where he was born.
From the tone of your comments, it appears you are birfer pretending to be disinterested.
I care where Obama was born. He was born in Hawaii. He has a COLB, which is legal document that attests to his birth.
I don’t need a doctor to now verify something that occurred 48 years ago. And there’s no competent evidence to suggest the COLB is fake.
Nor do I think the amount of frivolous lawsuits is an indicator (other than as a measure of how some people have too much time on their hands) of the importance of this issue. (And the money spent is a direct result of these suits being filed — so stop the filing of these suits if you want to save money.)
Is that was passes for “excellent” research at Repux?
There are many innocent reasons to explain the sequencing: Alphabetical sort, different batches of certificates, LIFO, etc. It is, however, rather notable how close the numbers are.
Perhaps the excellent researchers at Repux can answer this one: Why are officials at the highest level of a Republican governor’s administration engaging in a vast cover-up?
Because that’s what you are really suggesting.
The birth certificates aren’t created by order of birth, because they are not completed in the delivery room — they are filled out later from documents compiled on separate worksheets completed after birth by the facility and by the mother.
Example: mother’s worksheet:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/momswkstf_improv.pdf
facility worksheet:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/facwksBF04.pdf
After the handwritten worksheets are collected, then they are typed onto a certificate form, and at that point the number is issued.
But it has nothing to do with birth order at the hospital. The staff will bring the worksheets to all new moms on the maternity ward, and collect them whenever the parent finishes filling them out.
Since Obama was born on a Friday and the twins were born on a Saturday, its possible that all worksheets from the weekend were collected and taken to clerical staff on Monday. The certificates would simply be created in whatever order the paperwork came.
The only way they can explain away now after Dr Fukino’s latest statement is if everyone is lying: Dr Fukino, Janice Okubo, Kapiolani Medical Center, the DNC, the RNC, the Bush Administration, the 50 states, the State Dept and on and on. For them to insist Obama was not born in Hawaii requires everyone now and in 1961 to have been lying. They are putting the stake through their own argument because you know if the story requires hundreds of people to be “in” on it for almost 50 years and no one’s spilled the beans? It can’t be anything but a paranoid conspiracy theory. They are screwing themselves by continuing to try to contort some possibility that Obama isn’t a NBC.
“I didn’t say that I didn’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but obviously thousands, if not millions still have doubts.”
At the risk of asking an obvious question, since when did the doubts of idiots impose a responsibility on anyone else to assuage them? There are probably thousands of people with doubts about the heliocentric model of the solar system, but should we make it a priority for NASA to establish that the earth really does revolve around the sun?
I see the Twins’ COLB was “accepted” on Aug 11, 1961, which happens to be the same day the doctor signed it.
Why was BO’s COLB “filed” and on Aug 8, 1961 with a higher number and not “accepted?” And why didn’t a doctor sign it if it has a number similar to the numbers assigned to babies born Kapiolani?
Why was BO’s COLB “filed” and on Aug 8, 1961 with a higher number
Among the innocent rationales: LIFO, alaphabetical sorting, different batches of certificates. Happy?
Why do you ignore that the numerical sequence supports the contention that Obama was born in Hawaii when the State of Hawaii says he was?
not “accepted?”
If you are going to imply there’s a legal difference between being “filed” and “accepted,” please cite some law.
And why didn’t a doctor sign it if it has a number similar to the numbers assigned to babies born Kapiolani?
Doctors don’t sign COLBs.
As a general practice, birth certificate numbers start over with “1” each year. The numbers were applied to the birth certificate by a number stamping machine at the state health department (based on my long experience in the industry). Of course, nowadays, computer systems assign the numbers.
1. There was a delay in filing of the twins birth certificate. The form was typed up and ready to sign on August 7th – this is known because that is the date the mom signed it. But the doctor didn’t sign until August 11th.
The most likely explanation is that the doctor who delivered the twins was away from the hospital for several days.
2. Obama’s COLB says “filed” because when the US State Department set standards for what is required on birth certificates, they specified that it is necessary to show date “filed”. So at some point Hawaii changed the language on its electronic form to comply with federal requirements, and started using the word “filed” rather than “accepted”. It means the same thing.
3. A doctor or other birth attendant (such as a midwife) did sign Obama’s birth certificate. We know that because such signature is a necessary prerequisite to filing. The doctor signed the paperwork on or before August 8, 1961. We know that by the filing date reflected on the COLB. The COLB does not bear signatures because it is an electronic record, reporting the essential DATA from the original birth certificate.
4. Obama has a higher certificate number than the twins because his certificate was typed up after theirs. Most probably the worksheets were stuck in a typist’s inbox as they were completed, and then the typist would come in and fill out the certificates with the information from the worksheets. When the certificates were typed up a number was assigned (the forms were either pre-stamped or the typist placed the stamp on the document when completed).
So the certificate numbers were issued when the certificates were typed up; but the certificates could not be filed with the health department until they were signed by both the mother and the birth attendant.
That question was decided a long time ago, and the answer is: no.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
In your experience, would local hospitals generally be supplied with a stack of pre-stamped documents to prepare, or would they bring the worksheets to the health department, with a health department employee typing up the actual certificate?
Parents either fill out a paper worksheet, or they are interviewed by a clerical person to gather information. A trained hospital worker then collates the worksheet information with a host of medical information onto a blank “birth certificate” form. Keep in mind that this form is just a plan black and white form, no security paper, and no certificate number.
The “birth certificate” form then goes to a local registrar (in Hawaii) and then to the state health department where it is reviewed for completeness and consistency with regulation. At that point the document is “registered” and “numbered”, in 1961 probably stamped with a mechanical number stamping machine that increments the number (like an odometer) ever time it stamps. [Some states number before they register, and some register before they number.]
Because a fair number of Hawaiian birth certificates appear as negatives, it looks like there is some microfilming in the process and that for some time period, the photocopies came from microfilm/fiche rather than from the paper originals.
When someone orders a birth certificate, the state has done several things. One is to photocopy the black and white form onto security paper, stamp and seal it, creating a certified copy. I have seen other Hawaiian birth certificates where the information is just typed onto the security paper, stamped and sealed, and in the case of all issued now, a computer prints the information onto the security paper, which is then stamped and sealed.
Here’s an inconsistency. Why did the state of Hawaii declare both that they had discarded all paper documents in 2001, yet also declare that they had personally inspected the original birth certificate? These are two mutually incompatible comments. Either the paper records were destroyed, or they were not. Which is it?
If they were destroyed, but they have a scanned image (the only thing that makes any sense to do when you are electronically archiving a collection of paper documents), why can’t the original image be released?
And if this is the case, then it is still misleading, (ie, a lie) to say that you have seen “the original”. Because lets be perfectly clear… only the paper long form birth certificate is “the original”. Anything else is a “facsimile”, or an “abstract”.
The state of Hawaii never declared it had discarded the paper documents. CNN said that. Nor has the state of Hawaii ever said it scanned the original docuemtns.
If birthers are unwilling to accept a scan of an authentic State of Hawaii certification of live birth, why would they accept a scan of the original? Because it would look old? Birthers are wetting themselves over an online picture of a Kenyan birth certificate – “this is it!” – but they wouldn’t believe the pictures on factcheck.org. Bizarre. Are the voices in their heads telling them the Kenyan one is real?
“Here’s an inconsistency. Why did the state of Hawaii declare both that they had discarded all paper documents in 2001, yet also declare that they had personally inspected the original birth certificate?”
They didn’t declare that they had discarded all paper documents in 2001. CNN said that the department “went paperless” in 2001, and birther nuts went into hysterics claiming that this meant that Hawaii had thrown out the originals.
In their rush to shout “Contradiction! Cover-up! Roswell!”, they didn’t stop to think that if the Dept. of Health had discarded all the original paper documents in 2001, then Obama was hiding nothing because there was nothing to hide.
In any case, a paperless office is not one in which all the original papers are chucked out. Not if they’re vital papers like birth certificates or wills. My late mother’s workplace, a law office specializing in estate planning, went paperless some years ago owing to the difficulty of keeping all these original documents on site at their vault. However, they were not legally allowed to throw original wills and codicils away, so they had these scanned and saved as text files, then farmed the original documents out to a storage and archival facility.
“And if this is the case, then it is still misleading, (ie, a lie) to say that you have seen the original’. Because lets be perfectly clear… only the paper long form birth certificate is the original’. Anything else is a facsimile’, or an abstract’.”
So, let’s assume that it is true that only the paper filled out at Barack Obama’s birth is the “the original”.
I am not claiming to have seen the original, but I am not Dr. Alvin Onaka nor Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Why is it so ridiculous to assume that the director of the HI Dept. of Health and the Registrar of Vital Statistics would have greater access to what you characterize as “the original” than I would?
The simplest way for this to end is Obama can just release the long form birth certificate and be done with it. Even Carol Swain a political science professor and blogger for the Huffington post said the same thing.
It is utter lunacy to think evidence of any kind will stop these conspiracy theories. I’ve lived among these nut cases for 8 months. They don’t want Obama’s birth certificate; they want his neck in a noose dangling from tree in Georgia.
Obama released his birth certificate a year ago. Anybody who doesn’t accept that (and its corroboration) is beyond rational thought.
I have been in correspondence with Professor Swain. She said, and I quote: “I’m not a birther.”
You are right, but she also said “I do find it problematic that the White House doesn’t just release the document and end the discussion.”
Also, “I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background.”
See Dr. Conspiracy’s immediate response to your original posting.
That Professor Swain finds it “problematic” and thinks Obama can “end the speculation” indicates that she not been following the birther issue closely.
“A doctor or other birth attendant (such as a midwife) did sign Obama’s birth certificate. We know that because such signature is a necessary prerequisite to filing…” Expelliarmus
This assumes facts not proven and has no more credibility than the faery tales of Mother Goose or The Stork. Hawaii statute in 1961 (and today) mandates the registration of ALL births in Hawaii, even when no medical personnel were present, even when both of the parents could not be bothered to register, in which case Hawaii Vital Records would accept affidavits of a birth from ANYONE, at any time after the birth, even from the child himself as an adult. Sun Yat Sen (founding President of the Chinese Republic) is a particularly notorious example. This site has images of the original, previously lost INS documents http://www.asianamericanmedia.org/separatelivesbrokendreams/sunintro2.html
Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan (later Zhongshan) county, Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (16 miles north of Macau), but as the site referenced states
“[Sun Yat Sen] successfully outwitted immigration officials and gained entry to the United States…through the use of fake information. In this instance, he claimed and presented documentation of his birth not in Choy Hung village, Chungshan District, China, but in Hawaii. Contained in the case file is a “birth certificate” issued by the Secretary of the Territory of Hawaii…”
The type of law which allowed Sun Yat-sen to register his “Hawaiian birth” and secure US citizenship by fraud was only repealed by Hawaii in 1972. Apparently there were hundreds, if not thousands of such registrations in Hawaii around the time of statehood in 1959. Why believe the faery tale so soothingly crooned by Expelliarmus, when earlier on this page he has posted the ridiculous and easily disproved faery tale of Hawaii DoH “authenticating” the online images of Obama’s COLB?
“Imagine if…” kimba
Vital records rarely need to be challenged: according to both Hawaii statute (to be read on a COLB) and the Federal Rules of Evidence, vital records are prima facie evidence; that is, only sufficient until challenged in court by ANY evidence which indicates logical alternative conclusions to the presumed facts. Obama’s COLB cannot withstand such a challenge and consequently his original birth records from 1961 will have to be produced. We’ll see what happens then.
Obama should NOT release anything more than he has. Why should he? He has proven his place of birth and the state of Hawaii has testified. Hawaii should sue these people for libel. The constitution says he has to be a natural born U.S. citizen. That has been proven.
No president has ever been required to present an ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. If McCain was elected – who WAS born in a foreign country – these fools would not be demanding this. Good for Obama. What kind of country is this when even the president is racially profiled?
Ta-DAAA!!!
And there we have it, ladies and gents! It only took a few posts before some ignorant bigoted Obama apologist played the good ol’ “Race Card”!!
Congratulations, “Dr. Conspiracy”, you’re an idiot!
It’s all they have left to cling to.
Yes, but I am a very nice idiot.
So you are saying that a claim of racism is never warranted? The phrase “play the race card” is not a magic incantation that someone makes valid claims of racism vanish.
This is just classic. WND is trying to make a big bruha about the birth announcement address being tittle to some university professor (no one must rent in Hawaii). Then for some reason they try to press the issue that Ann Dunham enrolled at Washington University 15 days after Barack was born. They mention someone named Mary Toutonghi, and say:
“Toutonghi told both WND and the Seattle Chat Club blog that she babysat for Barack Obama Jr. when her daughter was 18 months old and that her daughter had her 50th birthday ‘this year.’
That would have placed the babysitting around February or March 1961, several months before Barack Obama Jr. was born. ”
They link to the Seattle Chat Club blog, which in turns say:
“She recalls as best she can the dates she baby sat Barack as her daughter was 18 months old and was born in July of 1959 and that would have placed the months of baby sitting Barack in January and February of 1962.”
I don’t know exactly what they are trying to prove or why they are trying to prove it, just don’t offer a link as a source of what you’re trying to prove when it says something completely different.
Here is another reason why Obama doesn’t “just” request that Hawaii “release his long form birth certificate.” Obama was born in Hawaii, as were many other Americans. Hawaii went to a new system as we all know of issuing forms in 2001 when the “birth certificate” is requested. Those documents are 100.00% legal for any “birth certificate” purpose. There are many Hawaiian-born people who can only produce that newer type of document when a “birth certificate” is needed. For Obama, or anyone else, to stipulate that the “long form” is needed, would cheapen the current “short form” and bring it into question. For thousands of current US citizens who happen to be born in Hawaii, but also millions born in other states with modernized vital statistics practices. This is not a minor issue, it would create a serious problem, for which Obama would be blamed, and rightly so, for his exceptionalism and selfishness.
I’m no expert here, but I understand that Stanley Ann was taking extension courses at UW that fall.
The extension courses could have been correspondence classes.
University “extensions” generally exist to make services available to nontraditional students, including working adults. Generally they are open enrollment. Students pay for each course separately rather than matriculating at the university, and course fees are relatively modest. They are often taught by members of the community or adjunct professors, rather than regular university faculty. They may be given on weekends or evenings.
It is clear from Stanley’s transcript that she did not enroll as a regular student at UW until March of 1962 — but she took two extension courses in the fall of 1961 and another two in the winter quarter of 1961-1962. It is likely that she signed up for those courses with the intention of coming to UW, possibly to fill some requirements for her intended course work. But there is no evidence that she was physically present in Washington at any specific time relative to those courses.
Even if the courses did have regular class meetings, it is quite possible that she made arrangements with the instructors to complete work independently and submit material by mail — this would probably be fairly common for a new mother or for any person who had health issues making it difficult for them to physically attend class.
Also, as to the fall semester classes, she could have enrolled late – even regular university classes typically let new students enroll up to the 3rd week of classes, and extension courses tend to be far more flexible.
I know some people may claim this is speculative, but back in the 60’s it really was the norm for pregnant young women and new mothers to be expected to complete coursework at home rather than physically attending school. I know women who attended college in that era who were asked by their school administration to make arrangements to complete coursework at home at a certain point in their pregnancies — it just was the way things were done, probably up through the mid or late 60’s.
That’s an interesting idea that I had not thought of. Thanks.
This reminds me of Missouri republicans trying to amend their state constitution regarding who is allowed on the ballots, HJR 34. The language in the bill was blatantly aimed at Obama. It said:
“For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate’s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted.”
It was withdrawn 9 days later, presumably because someone figured out Missouri only issues electronic certificates like the COLB. They unwittingly tried to exclude anyone born in their own state from appearing on the Missouri presidential ballot.
On a side note the Posey birther bill was introduced in the US Congress the day after it was withdrawn. I still wonder if that’s a coincidence.
Interesting that; now that Obama is the most powerful man in the world, suddenly there is proof that he was born in the U.S.
Where was that proof a year ago? Should have been in the same place as it is now.
The proof (the COLB) was on his web site a year ago.
It is extremely racist to require whites to live by the laws and show documentation and not people of other skin color. What could be more racist than that? Double standard?
Because Obama is afraid to show his documents, his supporters can only resort to nasty namecalling of those who have a reasonable right to see proof of birth and citizenship.
And yes, if someone hides simple documentation for a year and then suddenly shows something, it would have to be forensically analyzed, because Obama created reasonable and justified doubt as to its authenticity by his own unreasonable delay.
Since Christians try to live by truth and honesty, he is making clear what his beliefs are.
Let’s place the blame where it lies, not on those upholding the law. If a racist is somebody who wants all races to show documentation, we are racists. If racists are those who only want one race to show documentation, we are not racists.
Obama talks transparency, so let’s live it.
Calling people who want to see documentation such as Alan Keyes and Dr. Manning racists is ludicrous.
Try another namecalling technique…racist simply does not work. It is actually an insult to Obama himself, since I am sure he feels black people and people of mixed race can find birth certificates and live by the same laws whites do.
I am sure Obama does not believe they need constant excuses or special treatment when it comes to documentation.
Using such nasty names merely makes you look like a racist far more than those you attack.
Maybe call us a nasty name like “you stupid law-abiding citizens” or how about the “truthers” versus the “sneakers.”
Just thought I would note — WND has documented that Stanley and Madeleine Dunham lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway along with Ann in 1961. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107337
So much to reply to Ch.
“It is extremely racist to require whites to live by the laws and show documentation and not people of other skin color. What could be more racist than that? Double standard”
You confused me a moment- I thought maybe you were being ironic- because it is the African American man being asked to show documentation that no previous President has been asked to show. After Bush was elected, did he have to show his Birth Certificate? Did Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Matter of fact- I know of no white President who has ever been asked for his BC. By your own standards that is racist.
“Because Obama is afraid to show his documents, his supporters can only resort to nasty namecalling of those who have a reasonable right to see proof of birth and citizenship.”
No really, we try logic first, and then start getting more snippy after being insulted by the likes of Heavy and Truth. We have pointed out patiently that you- the citizen- do not have a right now to demand proof of his birth. You might have had that prior to his election and swearing in, but not now.
“Since Christians try to live by truth and honesty, he is making clear what his beliefs are.”
I think you are confusing several things here. A Christian can try and fail to live a “Christian” life and still be a Christian. But regardless of this jab at his personal religious belief(which have nothing to do with his presidential eligibility, and is not really your or my business anyway), where has he not been truthful or honest? He provided an officially certified copy of his BC which was examined by respected non-partisan journalists. Does being an honest person mean he has to provide every document any and every citizen demands of him? If so, he would never have a chance to do anything other than respond to this frivolity.
Not every person who is asking for the BC is a racist- but I am quite comfortable saying that a good many of them are racists. Just the fact that none of these people ever asked a White President for a BC makes me comfortable with that.
“Maybe call us a nasty name like “you stupid law-abiding citizens” or how about the “truthers” versus the “sneakers.”
The problem with that is Birthers don’t have much regard for the law or the truth. Birthers regularly suggest that President Obama should be removed from office by the Military or ‘other’ means. Birthers regularly recite lies that have been completely refuted, and present rumors as truths.
Sure, some of you sincerely just want the truth. But many of you are racists who really just want to undermine the President for personal or political reasons.
You might want to check out the link in the preceding traceback. That article suggests that someone went to the library and substituted microfilm reels and thereby added the birth announcement for Barack Obama, creating a fake public record.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/newspaper-birth-announcement-ads-in.html
And Whitey Bulger could have bribed a doctor at the hospital to falsify the birth record.
If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
Even if the long form birth certificate said that it was a home birth certified by grandma, the COLB and the BC would still be sufficient evidence to prove that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Against this, you have hearsay, fraud, forgery and innuendo – none of which would be sufficient to overcome the value of the birth certificate! James Orengo of Kenya said in an off-hand remark that Obama was born in Kenya? Was he there? No? Then his statement is of zero value.
A reasonable person would say that if the Hawaiian state puts their seal on a birth certificate, signs it stating that it is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the records they have on file, that that outweighs random hearsay from Kenyan government officials. A reasonable person would believe Hawaiian officials when they said they’d examined the records and confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu. A reasonable person wouldn’t create unreasonable doubts about a birth 6,000 miles away. (It’s reasonable that a very pregnant woman would travel half-way around the world in a time before direct flights to have birth in the third-world?)
You want proof that your doubts are unreasonable? Even JD Hayworth runs from any association with birthers!
As we’ve previously learned, exactly 14 (out of a total of 8,268) Honolulu babies in 1961 were born outside a hospital. No idea if any of those 14 were unattended by a medical professional.
But August 4, 1961 was a Friday. If Grandma mailed in a form saying “hey, we had a baby Friday night”, how likely would it be that the BC would be registered and filed by Tuesday, four days later? Through the US Mail? To a state office? On just her say-so, with no follow-up? 14 is about 1 per month. You’d think they’d get a bit more scrutiny than normal births, and take a couple of days to check out. Maybe a couple of internal checks. But within one business day? (Half a day to open the mail, another half to file). And was Grandma waiting for an overseas cable with a form in hand ready to mail on Saturday? You don’t even need to understand the verification process to know how silly the claim is. Speed wouldn’t have been of the essence as 30 days would be the same result as 4, with fewer red flags at the time.
Pingback: Did Obama’s mother use an alias after Obama’s birth? | The Post & Email
Is is just me, the “birth announcement” says Mr. and Mrs. Barak H. Obama. Did he father himself? I know he’s a Mother F’r, but I don’t think even “the messiah” is capable of this.
Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
The Obama Hate is strong in you
No one can be that dense. His father’s name is also Barack H. Obama
Obama Hater: Is is just me, the “birth announcement” says Mr. and Mrs. Barak H. Obama. Did he father himself?
Actually this strange biological phenomenon is not unheard of among US presidents, for example John Adams and George Bush.