http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37119
Natural Born Citizen, Birth certificate, Eligibility laws
The Easiest Way to Access Obama's Original Birth Certificate
- Online By Monte Kuligowski Wednesday, June 1, 2011
After years of fighting its release, on April 27, 2011, President Obama
finally released a detailed birth certificate. Well, actually he posted
another PDF image online. If the press corps were not paralyzed by fear, a
request to inspect the original document would be as natural as a clerk
asking for picture ID before accepting a credit card.
After Obama presented the long-awaited document, as one writer notes
<http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/csimpson/110519> , "with name-calling,
not an ounce of humility, nor an appearance of patriotic servitude," Andrew
McCarthy noticed
<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265880/birth-certificate-where-are-ind
ignant-questions-obama-andrew-c-mccarthy> that one of the things Obama said
was "unintentionally striking." Mr. Obama contended that no one should ever
have questioned his birth certificate because credible people who had seen
it had described it in affidavits. Naturally, he didn't mention why they
were in the position of having to describe it in affidavits: namely, because
Obama had refused to authorize production of the actual birth certificate,
which he could have done at any moment over the last three years.
At this point, should our courageous journalists once again defer to
Obama-approved "credible people" to look at the document in secret and then
"describe it in affidavits," as authentic? Or should the document be subject
to open authentication by actual, certified document experts? I'm going with
the latter. If he has nothing to hide, why keep the original under lock and
key?
Are we now to believe uncritically that a detailed birth certificate existed
all along? Was it the birth certificate, the bare-bones certification or
something else that was described by "credible people?"
Mr. Obama wasted precious resources for years paying high-priced lawyers to
block its production, only to eventually post it online? Mr. Obama allowed
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
<http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/ap-army-leavenworth-birther-doctor-re
leased-051311/> to suffer the pain of imprisonment for requesting to see
the birth certificate, only to electronically parade it four months after
Lakin's sentencing?
None of this makes any sense. Anyone with two brain cells making contact
believed that Obama had something to hide. Yet, according to the scanned
image he posted, nothing devastating or even embarrassing is observed in the
document. With that being the case, the entire Obama- caused drama is even
more bizarre.
Authentication of legal documents is standard procedure. Especially in a
political context when opponents have every right to ensure the legality of
a document presented as proof of a constitutional requirement-and especially
when actual production has always been the legal standard, not internet
posting.
Numerous graphic artists <http://www.kjct8.com/news/27711049/detail.html>
and computer program experts
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=296881> have discovered a
multitude of forensic alteration problems with the online image. For many
experts, it's not a matter of if it was altered, but for what reason. But
even if the Obama posting did not have glaring problems, the public has a
right to be assured of its authenticity-especially after years of
stonewalling and deliberate obfuscation.
Dr. Jerome Corsi is reportedly requesting an FBI investigation and criminal
charges and others are filing civil suits in attempts to subject the
original birth certificate to examination.
But based on past eligibility lawsuits, the judicial system has not proven
itself a helpful resource. Fortunately, there is an easier way to gain
access to the document and it's certain to get results-if worded correctly.
I'm referring to the election eligibility laws of the states. At least 12
states are working on eligibility law to ensure the "natural born Citizen"
status of the candidates for the 2012 presidential election.
Initially, the eligibility bills were a source of bold optimism yet, so far
they've been a huge disappointment.
I've pointed out previously
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=302549> that most states
are neglecting to define the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the
traditional sense as requiring a native U.S. birth of parents who owed no
allegiance to any foreign government. That little bit of language is
essential to force the federal courts to rule on whether Obama is eligible
to appear on the ballots in 2012.
And, now that Obama has posted an image of a birth certificate, the
eligibility laws of the states can pave the way to authenticate the original
document.
Here's how. In law, when a document is produced in compliance with legal
discovery or other directives, the producing party may produce the original
document or a true copy of the original. If the party produces a true copy
of an original document, the original document must be made available for
inspection-provided that the requestor included language of inspection in
the request.
If some of the individual states wish to send document forensic experts to
Hawaii to examine and copy Obama's original, embossed birth certificate,
precise language must appear in the eligibility law. It is not enough to
direct that Obama file the original or true copy of his birth certificate
with the respective state's secretary in order to be placed on the state's
2012 ballot. The relevant law must also state something like this: "If a
true copy of the birth certificate is filed, the candidate must make his/her
original birth certificate available for inspection, examination and
copying."
So simple. But, potentially, so powerful. Of course, time is of the essence.
Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com
osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
