Huge News! Obama Must Prove Eligibility in Court Now as Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Link to source story date 11 JAN 2012

The hearing here in Atlanta will be on January 26th at 9 am. Since this is a public hearing, the public can attend. The location is the Justice Center Building, 160 Pryor St, Atlanta, GA – Courtroom G40 on the ground floor.

I was really excited about this but reading the story it looks like amateur night.

Heavy sigh...

Oh well, at least we gave him a chance. It really does not matter at this point.

Not even RP could save us now.

Mit is short for Mittens right, that is a cats name?

THIS is great! It's about time Obummer had to prove his eligibility. Now maybe the actual birth certificate will surface and the official one will be proven as a forgery in a court (kangaroo?) of law. The creator of photoshop has examined it and she says it's fake. Hopeflly she has a good security team because if it goes to trial, she may "disappear" and become one of the first residents of the new American Gulag system-or worse.

Originally posted by parsecdude
THIS is great! It's about time Obummer had to prove his eligibility. Now maybe the actual birth certificate will surface

It has surfaced, years ago but some people refuse to accept reality!

. The creator of photoshop has examined it and she says it's fake.

Why tell lies? The "creator" of photoshop has NOT examined it.
Any proof she is the creator of photoshop?

In 1987, Thomas Knoll, a PhD student at the University of Michigan began writing a program on his Macintosh Plus to display grayscale images on a monochrome display. This program, called Display, caught the attention of his brother John Knoll, an Industrial Light & Magic employee, who recommended Thomas turn it into a fully-fledged image editing program. Thomas took a six month break from his studies in 1988 to collaborate with his brother on the program, which had been renamed ImagePro.[10] Later that year, Thomas renamed his program Photoshop

Why do birthers post silly claims here and elsewhere that are so easily shown to be lies?

reply to post by parsecdude

The creator of photoshop has examined it and she says it's fake.

I don't understand. It's a fake what exactly? A fake pdf? Every pdf reader I know of can read it just fine, how does that make it a fake?

Was it made by a non-licensed pdf creator so she didn't get her royalties? I would have thought that Apple would be pretty cluey about that sort of thing.

Is it fake because it wasn't produced by Photoshop maybe? I thought Photoshop was an image editor not a pdf writer.

I just cannot figure out how you can have a fake pdf. Either its a pdf or it isn't a pdf.

reply to post by rnaa


He may be referring to a "heavily edited" pdf.

I have seen pics showing blank areas and what not.

Jan 6 Video News story of plaintif and Obama lawyer

When they say the PDF if a fake they mean it is obvious that it was modified. Go back and look at the embedded videos. The pdf is a copy, that looks like it was in a bound volume, has a curviness to it on the left side. THe form lines also curve. Some of the filled in writing curves. But some of the fillied in writing is straight, where it would be curved if it was on the original.

This plus other discrepancies make it seem to be a bad forgery.

In those days a birth could have been reported by Grampa and Grandma, in which case DOH would give the info to the newspaper, but there would be no long form BC because that comes from the hospital.

There is really a ton of circumstantial evidence on this and there is a great book on it that came out before the fake BC was put out. THe author of the book did put out videos to update the information to include the new fake. See videos at ATS post here Videos at ATS post here

Question - if you wanted to be President but didn't fit the citizenship criteria, would you really, I mean *really*, put out some crappy fake document that an eight grader could see through? Is that how you'd run your conspiracy?

I'm guessing that when Obama was born, there weren't document scanners, Adobe Acrobat etc - it's a physical document that's had to be slapped onto a scanner and just like when you spread a bound book on a photocopier, there are distortions because the thing can't lay flat. Try a bit harder on that, conspirateurs...

reply to post by kawika




Whoa, that's pretty freaky stuff. Good find there. Scary though.

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Question - if you wanted to be President but didn't fit the citizenship criteria, would you really, I mean *really*, put out some crappy fake document that an eight grader could see through? Is that how you'd run your conspiracy?

Your point? You mean that because no one would put out an obvious fake, the doc must be real? Why put out an obvious fake? Because it is good enough for you and the others like you? I dunno.

Did you look at the video? Some of the doc is curved, that is ok. Some of the doc that should be curved is not curved. Because it is text that was added after it was scanned. That is what makes it look fake.

Have you done some reading or research?

Can you add something to the discussion? Do you have some facts that would explain the discrepancy? Can you look something up, and give a link or a quote, rather than just making something up? Is your Mom calling you for dinner?

reply to post by kawika


Your video was already debunked.
There is not discrepancy.
This has been gone over.
There is a reason you need that youtube video to speak for you.

reply to post by Littikani

Your video was already debunked.

Do you have a link or an explanation of why what is obvious to the most casual observer is not a problem?

Barry? Is that you?

Originally posted by kawika

In those days a birth could have been reported by Grampa and Grandma, in which case DOH would give the info to the newspaper, but there would be no long form BC because that comes from the hospital.

You are wrong all over the place. Birth certificates are not issued by hospitals. They never have been. They never are. You can buy a souveneir one from the hospital that is NOT accepted as ID and that is it. You all hide these little lies in your posts to make a grand point but reality knocks it all down. Just saying what you said so authoritatively shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The long form never would have come from the hospital. Hospitals do not issue them.

As far as the newspaper it has already been shown that the brth announcements were gathered from the hospital records and not people calling up to tell them to place anything.

So that entire post is wrong.
Next.

Originally posted by kawika

Do you have a link or an explanation of why what is obvious to the most casual observer is not a problem?

Barry? Is that you?

Just what would that problem be exactly? You kind of have to present one first.

Contrary to the claim being made by the birthers, Obama - as defendant - does not "have to prove" anything. Rather, Taitz is obliged to present a prima facie case. So far the birthers have consistently failed to do so.

Besides the short and long birth certificates, the attestation of the directors of the Hawaii Health Dept and the Hawaii Vital Statistics offices, a House of Representatives Resolution in 2009 that he was born in Hawaii, the attestation of the current Governor who personally knew his parents and remembers when they brought baby Barack home from the hospital, and a multitude of other evidence, the evidence for his birth elsewhere is flimsy and contradictory.

reply to post by Littikani

Birth certificates are not issued by hospitals.

If an error has been made in preparation by the hospital, physician, funeral
director, or midwife, a new record should be prepared.

2. Hospital forced to close for a period of time
a. Secure any birth certificates that have been completed, but not yet mailed to the
local office; once stable, mail to the county office, if operational, if not, mail to the
state office at address shown above;
b. When facility is operational, complete any outstanding birth certificates and follow
above instructions. If parent is unavailable for signature, type mother’s name in
item 22 and put a note on the back, in the

WHO FILES
A birth record must be filed by the hospital administrator or designated representative of the
facility where the birth occurred, physician, midwife, or other person in attendance at the
birth.
If there is no person in attendance at the birth, the father, mother, or person in charge of the
premises where the birth occurred, must report the facts of birth to the local registrar within
five days. The local registrar then has responsibility for the preparation and registration of
this record.

Source for ex quote p 10

How would they get the doc signature if not from the hospital? Why don't you look up the things you don't know about rather than embarrass yourself like that? Or just read what others write and learn something. Once you are more experienced you can shoot from the hip like that but for now you need to give sources and be sure of your "facts".

reply to post by Littikani

Just what would that problem be exactly? You kind of have to present one first.

Read the thread...

Did you look at the video? Some of the doc is curved, that is ok. Some of the doc that should be curved is not curved. Because it is text that was added after it was scanned. That is what makes it look fake.

reply to post by Shoonra

House of Representatives Resolution in 2009 that he was born in Hawaii,

No resolution for Obama, the senate wrote one for McCain. Obama could have requested the same but did not. Presumably because they would ask for proof.

In fact if you go and find the documents where both parties nominated their candidate in 2008, McCains doc includes a statement that he is eligible for the office. The Dems LEFT THAT PART OUT.

Why don't you take that for homework and prove me wrong. Go find those docs. I am looking at one from Colorado, dated 28 Aug 2008, signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Germond. Go get it, prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Shoonra
Contrary to the claim being made by the birthers, Obama - as defendant - does not "have to prove" anything. Rather, Taitz is obliged to present a prima facie case. So far the birthers have consistently failed to do so.

Besides the short and long birth certificates, the attestation of the directors of the Hawaii Health Dept and the Hawaii Vital Statistics offices, a House of Representatives Resolution in 2009 that he was born in Hawaii, the attestation of the current Governor who personally knew his parents and remembers when they brought baby Barack home from the hospital, and a multitude of other evidence, the evidence for his birth elsewhere is flimsy and contradictory.

Bravo! But good luck with using facts here.

Originally posted by kawika
No resolution for Obama, the senate wrote one for McCain. Obama could have requested the same but did not. Presumably because they would ask for proof.

But McCain's conflict was real.

He technically was ineligible.

Source article link here

All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed on procedural grounds."

What is new is that they agree to hear the case. Previous dismissals were not because of facts but as quoted above "on procedural grounds". They would say you have no standing to bring the case, the court does not have jurisdiction, technicalities such as those. Never before have the facts, the evidence been examined by a court.

Even if nothing comes of it, I would be happy just to finally know the truth. And I don't know what the truth is, but I am pretty sure we have not heard it yet.

The court date is 26JAN2012.

Another story here

Even if Barack Obama were not a natural born citizen, there is no legal remedy for his removal from office at this point. If such a fact were determined prior to the 2008 election, or ideally before his election to the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate, he could have been kept off the ballot, but the Constitution makes no provision for removing a president from office because he is ineligible.

According to the Constitution, there are only two ways to remove a president from office. The first and most obvious way is to have him lose his re-election attempt. The second method is impeachment, which is addressed in Article II Section 4.

The only question that he is legally entitled to decide is whether Barack Obama is eligible to appear on the ballot for Georgia’s 2012 presidential election. When Obama’s lawyers present the president’s Hawaiian birth certificate, the judge will rule in their favor.