If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is clever he will turn his trial into an Obama birth certificate circus.
The New York Post has an excellent piece by attorney Michael Schwartz, pointing out the difficulty of predicting a jury's verdict in the pending Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial in New York City. His article is entitled "Why the gov't could lose this case."
But there is a complex, two-part possibility that Attorney Schwartz did not consider.
KSM has said he wants to put the US government on trial and will probably bring up the Bush administration and mention waterboarding as torture in the courtroom, playing to the international media. But why would he limit himself to attacks on the last administration? KS Mohammed could well bring up the subject of Barack Obama never producing his long form birth certificate and thus claim he is not qualified to be President of the United States, thus rendering invalid his appointment of Attorney General Holder. It would throw the court into an uproar and possibly cause a Constitutional crisis, exactly what KSM wants – and the Obama administration doesn't want to see on television just before the 2010 or 2012 elections.
KSM doesn't even have to research the citizenship matter much. He could merely attain transcripts of the case attorney Orly Taitz won against the government in attempting to deploy a soldier overseas who claimed that Barack Obama wasn't a valid Commander-In-Chief. He could also use the public record of Philip Berg's testimony in his attempt to question President Obama's citizenship before the US Supreme Court.
Perhaps Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has worked out a private deal with the Obama administration to not bring this up, but he would obviously be more than willing break that deal and advance a media-based jihad where he could extend the trial for a number of months.
This brings us to the second part of this complex situation regarding a possible courtroom discussion of Obama's legal citizenship. Just as a prudent person never loans out anything they won't mind never getting back, what if Obama has figured for KSM's questioning the Obama Presidency's legal authority – and would enjoy a Constitutional crisis that throws the country into an uproar? Obama is governing as if he has one TWO-YEAR term, not four. What if the destruction of Constitutional rule and capitalism is his aim, as many a website has made a case for? That would mean Obama would relish a Constitutional crisis and might even want to use it to declare martial law.
Don't assume that Obama wants what most people want in America. If that were true, he never would have flown a 747 trailed by a jet fighter over Manhattan as if it were another 9/11 – or moved this trial to the New York federal courthouse. Why would you give the man who appointed a bunch of unaccountable, unconstitutional Czars and is involved in passing an unreadable healthcare bill in the middle of a Saturday night the benefit of the doubt?
I'm not aware of any eligibility case that Orly Taitz won. Can you fill us in a bit please?
The issues surrounding Barack Hussein Obama II's unlawful rise to power will come out in one court case after another. He was born a dual-national to an American mother and to a British citizen father. Regardless of birth location, he cannot be an Article 2 natural born citizen. No statutory act will reverse the conditions of his birth. He is a 14th Amendment citizen, entitled to be a mayor, governor or congress member. BTW — Congress needs eligibility laws limiting access to natural born citizens. The US Senate is the birthplace of laws, and it doesn't make sense to have dual nationals writing US laws. Did Barack Hussein Obama Sr, a married man, violate the conditions of his legal alien status, by having sex with a 17 year old minor?
"One court case after another"?! There have been over 60 of them, and every one has been tossed out. Every single one. They are listed here: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf
So far no one has made so much as a dent in Obama's legal eligibility; all we've seen is wild speculation with no evidence to support it. Just look at borderraven's insane attempt to link Obama's presidential eligibility to a fantasy about an illegal sexual relationship between his parents.
I for one would love to see KSM make a fool of himself with a birther defense, but I have a feeling that his attorneys will avoid looking as dumb and incompetent as Orly Taitz and Phil Berg.
I think he is referring to the Cook v. Good case. Orly didn’t win that one as much as the Army decided it didn’t want Cook after all. (Cook’s commander in Afghanistan rescinded the orders, not wanting a whiner to serve under him) The judge dismissed the case after the Army rescinded the orders as there was no longer any case. Orly Taitz filed an appeal anyway, and then forgot to file a brief in the appeal. The appellate court judge tossed the case out after she missed the filing deadline. She went ahead and file a brief three weeks late and the court quite rightly is ignoring it as the case is closed. Only a total dudnderhead would consider that a “victory.”
It would be nice if birthers such as borderraven would at least do some basic fact-checking before posting wild theories. The age of consent in Hawaii was 14 in 1960. It was raised to 16 in 2001.
As for "Jack Kemp," it's already been pointed out that Orly Taitz hasn't won a single case, and there are no transcripts of the Cook case because there have never been any oral arguments. Likewise, Phil Berg has never given any "testimony" – he has merely filed written arguments, all of which have been thrown out of court.
The idea that a Federal judge would allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to raise this bogus "issue" is ludicrous. If he tries to raise it, the judge will immediately reject it, end of story.
Orly Taitz got exactly what her client wanted in the Cook case, which I think most lawyers would characterize as a "win." But did she prove anything meaningful about Barack Obama? No.
The conspiracy theory shoe hurts when the other foot has to wear it. All the "wild speculation" would end if Øbama produced a valid birth certificate, or are blacks so privileged now that we must be satisfied with just their word?
sedonaman: Just their word? Really?
How about "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen"?
Or is Dr. Fukino not white enough for you to take her word for it?
On whether the Certification of Live Birth is a "valid birth certificate," how about "Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth"? (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)
Racist much?
To date none of the cases have been heard, nor has discovery been authorized. No case was lost or dismissed on the merits. Cases have merely been dismissed due to subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing, or failure to state a claim. Consequently a case has been appealed to the 9th Circuit (Kreep). Plaintiffs with standing are now taking proper course of action, and filing in proper courts having jurisdiction (Chrysler dealers represented by Stephen Pidgeon and Leo Donofrio).
It is not part of the job description of the Hawaii State Department of Health, to make a determination of natural born citizen. However, since a department head in the state government of Hawaii, has made a public statement referencing a document, and in doing so generating intense public interest in that document, then a redacted certified copy of that document should be made available on demand, if not provided by request of the public, seeking to verify the public statement, per HRS §338-13, §338-18(g), OIP and UIPA. The only information on that document that should be redacted, is that which has not yet been made public.
Your theory that Chrysler dealers have standing to challenge Obama's eligibility makes about as much sense as your earlier one about his parents' sexual relationship.
In any case, Mr. Donofrio can't be taking much comfort in this remark — very much directed to the merits — from the Indiana Court of Appeals's affirming of the dismissal of Ankeny v. Governor:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Ankeny v. Governor, was not a determination of “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes. A dual-national at birth cannot ever be a Article II, Section 1 natural born citizen.
Sorry, borderraven, but the quote from the Indiana Court of Appeals makes it crystal clear that they don't see it the way you do.
There are other courts, and they may rule differently. But a lot has been written about this by non-Paraclete constitutional scholars, and they all say pretty much what this court says. Good luck getting a contrary ruling.
BTW–Wong Kim Ark was not a determination of Article II, Section 1 natural born citizen either. SCOTUS only said that Wong Kim Ark, was born on USA soil, under territorial jurisdiction and therefore a 14th Amendment citizen. However, SCOTUS was in error because under the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment, both parents being Chinese citizens, legally present in the USA still conferred joint Chinese citizenship on their minor child, by blood or personal jurisdiction. Wong Kim Ark was born a Chinese citizen, but the San Francisco, California, USA was his birthplace.
"SCOTUS was in error." BINGO!
At this point you've made it clear that you know that Supreme Court precedent is not on your side. All you can do now is to say that they are wrong and you are right.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you've demonstrated beyond doubt how far on the fringe you are. No one with any credibility sees it your way, and your chances of legal victory are exactly zero.
The latest good news on the eligibility front:
“The importance of this letter is the fact that the quo warranto provisions of the District of Columbia Code provide that a 3rd party may institute a quo warranto action if the U.S. Attorney General fails to respond within 3 months to his request.“
“Dr. Orly Taitz wrote Holder on March 1st. In her letter, published today at her website, she demands that either he take action himself, or that her plaintiffs be granted ex-relator status to proceed in the name of the United States of America, as the D.C. code allows.
“http://americac2c.ning.com/profiles/blogs/taitz-demands-holder-commence?xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_url
SCOTUS never errs? Is that the basis of your position?
Dred Scott, anyone?
I would have deported Wong Kim Ark and his parents.
Of course SCOTUS reverses itself occasionally, and that's what it would take to have Obama declared ineligible. As I've said, you're entitled to your opinion, and I hope for your sake that you don't wager anything of value on the likelihood of your success.
You do realize that evidence can only be presented in court if the JUDGE finds it relevant, right?
How is whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency RELEVANT to whether KSM planned the attack on 9/11?
You do realize that was 7 years before Obama was elected, right?
Oh, and borderraven, the court in Wong did much more than simply say that Wong was born in the US and was thus a "14th amendment citizen." It found that the meaning of "natural born" had been unchanged for hundreds of years. It had meant born within the borders, regardless of parental citizenship when it was used in England. It meant the same when it was used in the colonies. It meant the same at the time of the Declaration of Independence and it meant the same when it was written into the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark was found a citizen BECAUSE the term "natural born" did not change – it had always meant born within the country without regard to parental citizenship.
I'll wager the US Constitution I am going to see Barack Hussein Obama I resign or be removed from office.
How about "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen"?…how about "Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth"? (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)
Racist much?
Take a statement from the head of your state's department of health along with a short-form copy of a certification of live birth down to your local social security administration office and try to "prove" that you were born in the United States and entitled to a social security number. Take the same documents with you before a judge and try to get a court order to legally change your name. Indignantly cite web pages to drive home the veracity of your case. Having adopted my step-parent's surname I have done both, so it is with the authority of experience that I tell you: you will not be successful in either case. Of course, my experience may have been unique. As a white male changing his surname to "Mulligan", I chalk it up to the obvious answer, as you have: racist much?
Arthur B., that you supposedly never heard of Orly Taitz can be remedied by doing a simple Google search on her name. Other commenters on this thread had no problem validating the existance of what Orly Taitz has done.
I'm sure you'll have objections to this, but don't expect me to spend a lot of time in exchanges with you. I've got 4 websites to compose articles for and I don't have that much free time.
Patrick Mulligan –
I don't know where you live, but I've used the Pennsylvania equivalent of the birth certificate the President posted on-line for over twenty years. It's been accepted by the Department of State when I applied for a passport, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when I registered to vote and obtained a driver's license, and by employers when I was offered a job. You are absolutely wrong, and if you aren't a racist, you're perilously close.
As for Gerry "Teenage girls in bikinis are hot!" Nance, aka Borderraven, he is 100% wrong about the President's citizenship. He seems to spend most of his time spamming sites about the President's citizenship when he's not giving interviews like this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=49238
A quo warranto will be docketed as USA vs Barack Hussein Obama II. I cannot wait to see that day, as it will be an historic moment. Go Orly Taitz!
Wong Kim Ark was only found a citizen under the 14th Amendment as defined by 8 USC 1401, he was not found to be NBC. Read the "holding" or decision at the end of the opinion, and don't rely on the "dictum" or body, too much.
In controversial case of … "Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States." …
… "Fifth.-The cross petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.
The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed. It is so ordered.
Decree modified and, as modified, affirmed. " …
The only laws in effect in the USA are the Organic laws of the United States:
The organic laws of the United States of America are included in the U.S. Code.
These documents include:
* the United States Declaration of Independence,
* the Articles of Confederation,
* the Northwest Ordinance, and
* the U.S. Constitution.
English law has not applied in the USA, since July 4, 1776.
Nice discussion, however when questioning Obama citizenship one must also review the federal statutes in place to determine citizenship. If the Obama birth date as reported is correct and birth occurred outside the US Obama is not even a citizen much less a natural born citizen.
None to the changes that occured to the laws since the reported birth date provided relief for those born before enactment.
The solution to this whole quagmire is for the Omessiah to provide the long form birth certificate.
By the way the certificate of birth from Hawaii is NOT a verification of birth in Hawaii for those of Omessiah's time periods.
Was Obama President on September 11, 2001? If not, none of this is relevant to his criminal trial and he would not be allowed to present it in his defense.
What's he going to say? "I planned an attack on the Twin Towers because I thought that one day an ineligible man would run for President?"
BTW, Mulligan and Mickey, if Obama took his COLB to any Federal Agency and said, "here's my COLB, can I get a [passport, SSN, little league membership]" they'd say, "Here you go."
The government only needs a state issued document [check], with a state seal [check], that shows you were born in the United States [check].
Borderraven, the holding of Wong Kim Ark says, "FOR THE REASONS ABOVE…" If the reasoning of the case is wrong, then Wong is not a citizen. The reasoning of the case is that the words "natural born" did not change.
Jack Kemp —
"Arthur B., that you supposedly never heard of Orly Taitz can be remedied by doing a simple Google search on her name. Other commenters on this thread had no problem validating the existance of what Orly Taitz has done."
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didn't say that I never heard of Orly Taitz. What I said was that I never heard of her winning an eligibility case, and I later produced documentation that proves that she never did.
The other commenters have made similar observations.
It's bad enough that you don't check your facts before you publish your articles, you also don't read comments before you respond to them. This is a very poor excuse for journalism.
borderraven: "English law has not applied in the USA, since July 4, 1776."
Your ignorance of legal history is astounding.
Do a little research. Maybe you will come to learn how many of our state constitutions make it clear that English common law forms the foundation of their legal systems.
love all the comments. I guess when your a powerfull Democratic politician, the rules can be bent in your favor. Even the very document which establishes the rules of Governence for our great land. I am sure if he, Mr. Obama was born on US soil the Document would have been released. Logic would dictate this. The dedacted thing released is not a certificate of birth, it fails because of the said dedactions. These are the facts. I hope some brave Lawyers are able to get this out eventually. 535 people with help from the media control America. Call, write, Blog. Freedom is precious!
Mickey G. says: "By the way the certificate of birth from Hawaii is NOT a verification of birth in Hawaii for those of Omessiah's time periods."
The State of Hawaii says that "Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth."
Why don't you explain why that doesn't apply "for those of Omessiah's time periods"? And why not a single Hawaiian official has admitted that contemporary official Hawaiian documents (Obama's COLB was issued in 2007) don't necessarily mean what they say?
BR—“I'll wager the US Constitution I am going to see Barack Hussein Obama I resign or be removed from office”——
Uh, BR, Barack Hussein Obama I has been dead for about 30 years.
Borderraving— “I would have deported Wong Kim Ark and his parents.”—
Perhaps you agree with the brief filed by the losing side in the WKA case.
From the pen of George D. Collins, the attorney for the side that lost WKA:
"Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?"
It sounds like he is conceding the very thing that you argue against.
Border raving: –“English law has not applied in the USA, since July 4, 1776.”–
Then what laws DID apply between July 4, 1776 and March 4, 1789?
Jack Kemp Wrote: ” Other commenters on this thread had no problem validating the existance of what Orly Taitz has done. “
I can validate that. She has failed in every eligibility lawsuit she has filed. Her legal incompetence has achieved legendary status on the internet. For most of her suits, she relied almost entirely on the rantings of a disbarred lawyer (her former lover) with the morals of a slug. When they broke up and she was forced to write her own briefs, she failed so utterly that she missed a filing deadline by three weeks and had a case tossed out as a result.
And, by the way, some of the birthers were claiming that Taitz's loss in Barnett wasn't really a loss — that Judge Carter hadn't really finalized his dismissal, that the case wasn't really closed, that it was dismissed without prejudice…
So, just this morning, Judge Carter made it crystal clear:
"The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification 103[RECAP] regarding whether the October 29, 2009 Order was a dismissal with or without prejudice. The Courts dismissal of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint on October 29, 2009 was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24187322/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-104-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-CLARIFYING-ORDER-GRANTING-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-OF-OCTOBER-29-2009
"was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice."
The man leaves himself wide open to charges of treason. Hopefully they will be brought to bear.
–"The man leaves himself wide open to charges of treason. Hopefully they will be brought to bear."–
Threatening a judge, Huh PR?
Treason? It's only 2009, you guys have reached Cindy Sheehan levels of nutjobbery way too early in Obama's term. Pace yourselves!
What will you have left in 2011? Obama kidnapped the Lindbergh baby?
borderraven: English law has not applied in the USA, since July 4, 1776.
———————
I agree with that however much of the SCOTUS' responsibility consists of evaluating Constitutional arguments based on the intent of the founders and it is clear that the founding fathers who wrote our Constitution used that body of work called the Law of Nations as a reference as it is mentioned by name in Article 1, Section 8 (YES, it was capitalized just as I have shown it above!) That plus the fact that they had to grandfather themselves in order to be eligible to serve as the POTUS (all were born here) is compelling evidence that they used the definition of 'natural born citizen' found in that body of work.
Arthur B.:
Re: “On whether the Certification of Live Birth is a ‘valid birth certificate,’ how about ‘Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth’? (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)”
That link is all very interesting but irrelevant. It lists the requirements for applying for the Hawaiian Home Lands program. Among the requirements, “You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as ‘any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.’ This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian. This requirement remains unchanged since the HHCA's passage in 1921.”
According to the liberals over at snopes.com, this http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg is what Øbama is touting as a “birth certificate”. A “certification of live birth” is not a signed document; it is computer generated. Not only that, but its very title sounds weasel-worded, as though it really means “This certifies that the individual named herein was born alive [as opposed to dead]," and nothing more. Even a state as backward as West Virginia issues “Certificates of Birth or Stillbirth” that include all the information, date of birth, place of birth, parents, parents’ birthplace[s], and they are signed by the attending physician, his assistant[s], and the county clerk. Why not Hawaii?
As far as my being a racist is concerned, I find it ironic because there is a law in Hawaii that mandates that blood banks keep native Hawaiian blood separate from haoli blood.
Øbama should stop acting like he has something to hide, like the other Hussein did, and produce a valid Birth Certificate just like white people have to.
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: "Take a statement from the head of your state's department of health along with a short-form copy of a certification of live birth down to your local social security administration office and try to 'prove' that you were born in the United States and entitled to a social security number. Take the same documents with you before a judge and try to get a court order to legally change your name. Indignantly cite web pages to drive home the veracity of your case."
Yes. Or how about a passport? You have to produce a Birth Certificate issued by the state where you were born, and it has to have an official seal embossed on it.
Actually, the district court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case did find that he was a natural born citizen, and the government acknowledged this in its appeal brief:
"The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen therof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitting him to land."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
The Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling without modification, so the SCOTUS decision does in fact confirm that Wong Kim Ark – both of whose parents were Chinese citizens – was a natural born citizen.
I'll wager the US Constitution I am going to see Barack Hussein Obama II resign or be removed from office.
Sedonaman writes: –“Yes. Or how about a passport? You have to produce a Birth Certificate issued by the state where you were born, and it has to have an official seal embossed on it.”–
Since the document form that President Obama posted on his web site is the only form that the State of Hawaii has issued since 2001, are you saying that no one from Hawaii has been able to get a passport since 2001? What about Little League? Has Little League been abolished in Hawaii because the state won’t issue the proper forms? Oh, the Humanity. . .
"YES, it was capitalized just as I have shown it above!"
Right. That proves it was a BOOK! Just like the book Piracies and Felonies in the same section.
Are you sure that the clause is referring to the book? I just realized that that section would only allow the punishment of Piracies and Felonies on the high Seas and Offenses that were against the book "Law of Nations." Are you positive the clause in question wasn't talking about international law in general?
stutzenbach:
Orly Taitz did not get "exactly what her client wanted" in the Cook case. Cook was a reserve officer who signed on with Orly before he volunteered to be deployed. The fact is that Cook never intended to be deployed. His act of volunteering was a sham intended only to give Orly a plaintiff with standing. After Cook & Orly sued the Army, the Army realized what was going on and decided to short-circuit the entire thing by rescinding Cook's orders.
If all Cook & Orly wanted was to get Cook out of being deployed, why has Orly appealed the dismissal? Of course, that's a moot point because she failed to file her appeal on time and now it has been dismissed.
borderraven:
The Constitution isn't yours to wager.
sedonaman:
Obama's COLB is signed and has a raised seal:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
More views of it here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Every state's birth certificates are different. My birth certificate from New York does not include the name of the medical personnel who delivered me, nor does it include the birthplace of my parents. It actually includes less information about me than Obama's COLB contains about him. Yet it was good enough for me to get a Social Security Number, a U.S. passport, register to vote, and enlist in the U.S. Navy.
The COLB is valid to get a passport. It was issued by the state, it has a raised seal on it, under the seal it has the signature of the Registrar, Alvin Anaka, certifying that it is a true copy or abstract of the records in the state's possession. And it was filed within days of Obama's birth. The State Department doesn't need to know what hospital you were born at, what doctor delivered you, or any of that.