All that you have to show it that if your allegations are true, you would be entitled to relief as a matter of law.

So if you allege (in good faith because you heard a rumor) that Obama was born on Pluto, you’re not going to get laughed out of court in summary judgment? Yes, you are. That’s just slightly more implausible than this case. And as an added bonus, this reflects on those making the allegations about as well as the TANG nonsense did.

Let. It. Go.

You do have to show that your allegations have some merit, or your suit gets tossed for lack thereof

That depends on what you mean by “merit”. You do not have to show your allegations are true to survive the pleading stage and get to discovery. All that you have to show it that if your allegations are true, you would be entitled to relief as a matter of law. Only in rare instances will a court disregard sham allegations when the allegations are easily refuted by matter of which the court can take judicial notice. The court could take judicial notice of Obama’s Hawaiian COLB, but on its face the COLB only creates a rebuttable presumption, it does not create an unassailable proven fact. You still need discovery. What does the grandmother really have to say? Could the COLB be falsified? Was the original BC modified? Inquiring minds want to know, and only discovery will answer the questions.

Why do you suppose that no one has found a court that agrees with that? You need to make a reasonable showing that you can prove your case and thus far you’ve got zilch. Your case hinges completely on what you might discover, and no judge is going to allow you to proceed on that.

No case has been decided on the merits. The cases have all been dismissed for lack of standing or for being premature. Eventually someone will have standing (a federal employee fired by BO?) and it will not be premature after BO starts to sign executive orders. Eventually, a court will need to address the merits. Those of you wishing this would go away, should agree with me. Allow a case to go through with discovery, have a Court decide it on the merits, appeal it to the Supreme Court and have the justices issue a unanimous decision finding he is a natural born citizen. After that, it will be over. Anyone who questions Obama’s legitimacy after that can safely be declared a conspiracy nut.

Pablo, you are not following. You do not need to prove a case BEFORE you file it. You can allege anything so long as it is alleged in good faith, and then seek to prove it later during the course of the litigation.

You do have to show that your allegations have some merit, or your suit gets tossed for lack thereof.

Therefore, I believe one of these case must be afforded the right of discovery to prove or disprove the allegations.

Why do you suppose that no one has found a court that agrees with that? You need to make a reasonable showing that you can prove your case and thus far you’ve got zilch. Your case hinges completely on what you might discover, and no judge is going to allow you to proceed on that.

The only reason (apart from standing) why these cases should be dismissed prior to discovery being conducted is if the Court determined that as a matter of law Obama is a natural born citizen — even if he was born in Kenya AND Obama is a natural born citizen — even if he was a citizen of Indonesia as an adult. No court has or can find as such. Therefore, I believe one of these case must be afforded the right of discovery to prove or disprove the allegations.

There are the school records from Indonesia showing Obama enrolled as an Indonesian citizen.

Which is proof of something having been written in a school record. What it isn’t is proof, in any way, shape or form, that he isn’t a natural born American citizen. So, that doesn’t rebut his COLB.

And Obama himself claimed to have traveled to Pakistan as an adult to visit his mother at a time when the US state department discouraged US citizen to travel there.

And? State discourages travel to a lot of places. There are very few the law forbids travel to, and traveling to them doesn’t change your citizenship.

I have read a declaration of a Anabaptist Bishop who translated the Swahili statement of Obama’s Grandmother. Sounds a little kooky to me, but this is pre-discovery.

Sounds like hearsay to me, and thus it’s inadmissible. Now if you can get Granny to state, under oath, the The One was born in Kenya, you might have cause to proceed. Good luck with that, and let us know when it happens.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Yeah, what she said!

Have you seen an affidavit to that effect? A court transcript? If not, then what you have is someone saying that she said it. And what does the law say about such second/third/fourth statements in regard to ascertaining the truth of a fact?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I have read a declaration of a Anabaptist Bishop who translated the Swahili statement of Obama’s Grandmother. Sounds a little kooky to me, but this is pre-discovery. Let’s issue some subpoenas and take some depositions under oath. There is at least enough there to give rise to the good faith allegation that Obama was born in Kenya.

Do you have any admissible evidence to suggest that any of these things are true? If not, no judge in their right mind is going to allow your suit to proceed so that you can conduct a fishing expedition.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM

There are the school records from Indonesia showing Obama enrolled as an Indonesian citizen. And Obama himself claimed to have traveled to Pakistan as an adult to visit his mother at a time when the US state department discouraged US citizen to travel there. There are plenty of unknowns, but I would not characterize it as a fishing expedition. There is a official school record saying he is an Indonesian citizen!

How about eye witness testimony from his grandmother saying “I was there when little Urkel was born. He was born in Kenya!” That testimony is apparently out there.

Have you seen an affidavit to that effect? A court transcript? If not, then what you have is someone saying that she said it. And what does the law say about such second/third/fourth statements in regard to ascertaining the truth of a fact?

A presumption can be overcome by other evidence. I doubt it would be overcome, but who knows until discovery is taken. Also, even if he has a birth certificate, if he was an Indonesian citizen as an adult, he would have renounced his US citizenship. So, we need to conduct discovery, look at the US and Indonesian state department files. Did BO have an indonesian passport as an adult?

Do you have any admissible evidence to suggest that any of these things are true? If not, no judge in their right mind is going to allow your suit to proceed so that you can conduct a fishing expedition.

And what would it be rebutted with? Hearsay that he was born in Kenya?

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM

How about eye witness testimony from his grandmother saying “I was there when little Urkel was born. He was born in Kenya!” That testimony is apparently out there. It may or may not be credible. That is why we need discovery. Who knows what else we might find — Kenyan birth records, suspicious amendments to the original Hawaiian BC, an attending physician with a fictitious name — who knows until there is discovery and an investigation?

But as I understand it, you can be born somewhere else and still obtain one of these, showing that you were born in Hawaii.

No. You can get one of these, but it will say when and where you were born. They do not and will not invent a Hawaiian birth.

Now you may not think that will hurt him at all, and it may not.

The man just won the most decisive electoral victory in the last 20 years. Assuming he runs again in 4 years, he’ll be running on his record in office, not his BC or his Columbia transcripts. This stuff doesn’t hurt him at all.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:49 AM

You seem to have a real comprehension problem…but that to be expected.

There is no point in trying to engage you in any perspectives that are not part of your rigid mindset imo.

Live long and prosper V.

Alana on January 14, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Not exactly. You could not get a birth certificate to indicate Honolulu as the place of birth if you were born overseas without some fakery. BO’s parents or grandparents would have had to lie to the Hawaiian state officials back in 1961 about where BO was born. However, that is not some vast conspiracy, and similar fakery happens everyday in East Los Angeles where immigrants lie about where a baby is born to afford the baby the franchise of US citizenship.

You mean in the case of Obama only, no one gets a chance to rebut?

And what would it be rebutted with? Hearsay that he was born in Kenya?

BTW, do you see that notation at the bottom of Obama’s COLB? “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”

The number of people who would have to be involved in both faking Obama’s data in the HI files and in continuing to conceal that fakery, all of whom would have to be maintaining their silence, makes this a classic conspiracy theory.

As I understand it, yes, it is evidence of a fact of birth.

But as I understand it, you can be born somewhere else and still obtain one of these, showing that you were born in Hawaii.

So – no conspiracy, fakery, code of silence, or whatever needed in that case.

BTW, do you see that notation at the bottom of Obama’s COLB? “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM

“prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.”

What? You mean in the case of Obama only, no one gets a chance to rebut?

And that impacts Obama how, exactly? On the contrary, it does more to discredit The Messiah’s opposition than it does Obama. And that there’s a full blown 9/11 truther at the center of it just adds that extra zest of zero credibility to the whole thing.

Let me try this one more time.

It only impacts him if he cares about what people think, or wants to have the most people on his side as possible.

Each of us is a person who makes determinations on who we want and don’t want leading us. I’m such a person.

I’m not “the messiah’s opposition” – I am a person. One who started out, by the way, quite favorably deposed toward Obama, and likely to vote for him.

He lost me, for reasons that would include (but predate) this sort of thing.

Now you may not think that will hurt him at all, and it may not. But I figure if enough people decide they don’t like him or don’t trust him, then he will either be voted out of power or have to keep power by force.

So yes, I think it is important for a politician to be open and above-board about his life, especially regarding simple things like a $12 birth certificate, or college records.

If they can’t be, then damned if I’m going to trust them.

Now, if it doesn’t matter to him who supports him and who doesn’t (and it very likely may not), then how he behaves doesn’t matter either.

Pablo on January 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I normally respect Patterico, but he got that wrong. In the post you cited Patterico claims that Obama released his birth certificate, when in fact he released a certification of live birth — and you know the difference or at least know the arguments. He also claims that the Hawaiian officials confirmed that his birth certificate states he was born in Hawaii — once again, you know that is not accurate or at least you know the arguments.

Patterico is not dispositive on this issue, because he has not looked at the issue close enough. However, even if everything Patterico says was true and we have a valid birth certificate on file saying Obama was born in Hawaii, that would not and should not be the end of it. A vital record only creates a presumption that the information is true. A presumption can be overcome by other evidence. I doubt it would be overcome, but who knows until discovery is taken. Also, even if he has a birth certificate, if he was an Indonesian citizen as an adult, he would have renounced his US citizenship. So, we need to conduct discovery, look at the US and Indonesian state department files. Did BO have an indonesian passport as an adult?

Maybe. But I’m more interested in the fact that no one seems to remember him from Columbia. I wonder why that is. But I have no right, nor do you, to those documents. And I fail to see, as I’m sure Obama does, how releasing them helps him even if they’re squeaky clean.

There are a whole lot of things we don’t have a legal right to. Nonetheless, we tend to want to know things about our public officials, especially the president.

For example: We have no legal right whatsoever to know anything about the President’s family.

Yet, people would think it strange, would they not, if for some reason the family were kept hidden? People would start to wonder what is amiss.

(Do not come to me about the impossibility of keeping a family hidden. Take the example at its face value.)

Releasing records is an indication of openness and trustworthiness. Refusing to release things others have is an indication of the opposite.

If you can’t grasp that, then oh well.

About the friends at Columbia, by the way – I found a piece online once (sorry, didn’t keep the url) where they were interviewing several people who knew him at college.

So I don’t think that business about “no one knew him at college” is accurate.

The number of people who would have to be involved in both faking Obama’s data in the HI files and in continuing to conceal that fakery, all of whom would have to be maintaining their silence, makes this a classic conspiracy theory.

Let. It. Go.

A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was, or is, represented as the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. The phrase is also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray a person or group’s views as being untrue or outlandish.

No investigation necessary.

Indy928 on January 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM

There has been discovery sought by the Plaintiffs in these cases, but Obama and company have refused to respond, and the Courts have backed him up and not required discovery.

With all due respect to Hot Air, LGF, MM, et al comparing people questioning Obama’s “natural born” status to conspiracy theorists is tantamount to an ad hominem attack. A conspiracy theorist disputes the official findings of public investigations such as the Warren Report on the Kennedy Assassination or the 9/11 Commission Report. As far as I know, there has been no official investigation whatsoever into the allegations that Obama was born in Kenya or was an Indonesian citizen as an adult. Once there is an official investigation and official findings, you can call the nirth certfikit troofers tin foil hat wearers, but until then you are just being an a$$.

In fact, there is a downside to not releasing any of this information. For example, all these threads, all those lawsuits going on, and so forth and so on.

And that impacts Obama how, exactly? On the contrary, it does more to discredit The Messiah’s opposition than it does Obama. And that there’s a full blown 9/11 truther at the center of it just adds that extra zest of zero credibility to the whole thing.