• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Former U.S. Attorney Roscoe Howard Jumps to Andrews Kurth | Main | Alleged Judge Stalker Begins Her Defense »

January 28, 2010



Dan Bradford said, " the burden of proof lies with those making the challenge."

It is empirically impossible to prove a universal negative. No one can prove that Barack Obama isn't constitutionally eligible any more than one can prove unicorns do not exist. In order to prove he is indeed eligible, Obama must provide the proper documentation, which he has failed to do.


So... once a copy of the original "birth certificate" Obama mentions being in his possession on page 26 of "Dreams of My Father" and the actual Occidental College records get released the question of Obama's eligibility will finally be answered. That'll be great.

Dan Bradford

Rednail. You are wrong. In the specific case of eligibility to be President, the Constitution makes a definite distinction between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen". To discuss this issue does not make anyone a racist, as you suggest. Be that is it may, I am convinced that the question is moot. Two reasons: the Hawaiian newspaper announcements of the birth of Barak Obama, and the fact the burden of proof lies with those making the challenge. Both are good reasons for all of us to move on and stop with the irrelevant and divisive name calling. The birther issue is dead.


"Hurtful and despicable" - "zero decency and zero honesty" - consider it karma, Orly Taitz. That is exactly how you've treated the President of this country, his family, and the 69 million Americans who voted for him. You don't like him? Fine. Vote him out. That's how we do it.


Re: "is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. "

That is precisely right. It is a summary, a new birth certificate that summarizes the original birth document. Many states are issuing short-form, laser-printed birth certificates, and Hawaii is one of them, and the Certification is the official birth certificate of Hawaii (

This birth certificate is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

Re: "What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing."

It is summarizing an ordinary Hawaii birth certificate from a hospital. That is because the officials in Hawaii say (and have said twice) that the original document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. In other words they are saying that there is no question that the original clearly says that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that no other birth certificate with any question on it--such as a Certificate of Hawaiian birth, or an amended birth certificate--can apply. This is further confirmed by the notices in the two newspapers that appeared about ten days after his birth and that show that there could not be a delay of a month or more, which would have been required with any birth certificate other than a normal, hospital birth.

There is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 because she wrote to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth (

There is absolutely no proof or even a credible report that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She clearly said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?”


Gee. We hurt Orly's feelings. Boo hoo hoo.

She is like a little child throwing a temper tantrum because she can't get her own way. I hope the day comes when some judge imposes sanctions and that she be expelled from the bar with prejudice.


Robert Hill said: 'Perhaps we can use this forum to establish what the Constitution means by "natural-born citizen".'

No need - it's abundantly clear that Obama qualifies since he was born in the US (which is also very clear from the posted birth certificate, the statements of Hawaii officials, the newspaper birth announcements, etc., etc.). The fact that this qualifies him is pretty clear from the Wong Kim Ark case. And if that wasn't clear enough, all you have to do is look at the opinion of one of the birther cases where they did rule on this - Ankeny v Indiana, where the appeals court said: "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."

Game over. Case closed. Everyone who is not insane can go home now.


It is so cute to see all these birthers post here and try so hard to sound like they are educated or know something about law and government, especially when they can't write one sentence without misspellings and grammatical errors. Cute. I also think it's really neat how they just vomit up all the bull that Glenn Beck shoves down their throats and have this facade that they know "inside secrets" and they have the Constitution memorized and understand the legalese and implications. Neat, neat neat. It's like watching a kindergarten student during show and tell. Oh, do please tell me more about your magical fantasy land that you live in, where this Muslim British Kenyan has loyalties to evil countries and wants to turn our great land into a socialist, communist, fascist, nazi dictatorship for the purpose of committing genocide against the citizens. Please do tell me more! (Note: That was not hyperbole. I watched Glenn Beck's past couple shows, and he did proceed to show the Jewish Holocaust and Stalin's and Mussolini's massacres and then ended with "warning" us that our nation is on the same path as these historical events, and we better do something before it happens to us! I am really surprised, despite the First Amendment, that his rhetoric does not merit a national security risk, especially with all the gun-toting rednecks that watch his show and believe every word that comes out of his mouth.) Tools! Fools!

Orly Taitz

I am Orly Taitz.
This is really hurtful and despicable that the publications that call themselves professional show zero decensy and zero honesty, when we have Legal News, Salon Huffington Post and like feed the public garbage and insults instead of doing proper interviews and reporting the truth. This unsigned article didn't provide one word of truth. The most basic point is that Obama is not a Natural Born citizen, yet you have twisted that by claiming that I argued that he is not a citizen. Obama might be a citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen in the meaning of Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution. I provided information that Obama, according to National databases used 39 different Social Security numbers, none of which was issued in HI and I asked for a writ of Mandamus to obtain original application from the commissioner of the social security Michael Astrue.
Regardless of what left wing brownshirts masquerading as main stream are writing, the truth is coming out, people are revolting. This was evident in VA, NJ and lately MA
If readers want to know the truth about my legal actions, they can go to my web site
If LegalTimes wants to show some integrity in journalism, they can interview me and report the truth.

Commander Ogg

I'm assuming that even self righteous bigots who hide behind their religion can read.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Would you please head over to a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia and leave the rest of us alone. And please take my Jewish Sister Dr. Taitz with you.

Lori Frank

There are PLENTY of CONSERVATIVES that don't believe the birthers. Those of you who insist on hurling generalized insults at your fellow Americans are just showing their immaturity because their President isn't as smart as they thought.


President Obama has already done more than any of his predecessors to prove his natural born status. Of course you could continue to discount the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth that counts as prima facie evidence. But then again, if we didn't have people that willfully ignored the facts, we wouldn't have Republicans.

Matt L

Conservatives are INSANE! I fear for our country if comments like the above are any guide.


This is about one thing and one thing only. The "Rule of Law". Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This amazing document which was written by not perfect men but good men gives this great country the borders and paramiters by which we are to operate and function. There is no one person, philosophy or thought process that is above or beyond its reach. There are those who haven't the time or the inclination to consider the law because they believe they are above it. This elitest mentallity is exactly what our founding fathers warned us about and did there best to protect us from by giving us the single greatest document ever written, The Constitution of the United States of America, second only to the Bible. If Mr Obama is as the Constitution refers to as a natural born citizen, Then all he has to do is produce the proper documents (a valid birth certificate and passport that he traveled with in 1981) and all this will simply become a mute point. This is so simple compared to the course of action taken to this point by Mr. Obama and his staff. It is only common sense that if you try to seal your records, you have something to hide and this is coming from the man who promised a transparent administration. "If the actions do not follow the words, then the words are only empty at best."

Jean Rich

I thought she was only licensed to practice law in CA. Does anyone know if a suit can be filed against her for wasting taxpayer money ?

Robert shanklin

Orly Taitz are not the issue. The first paragraph of the United States Supreme Court's website makes the following promise to the American People - “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.” To date, the United States Supreme Court has failed to do anything in furtherance of the search for the truth about Obama's natural born citizen status. Furthermore, not one single solitary person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or the rest of the Judicial branch of government has done anything other than accept Obama’s posted Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace.

Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”

At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.

In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to obtain a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Five of the six procedures lacked an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. That said, an “official” state-issued document that summarizes a document that lacks an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness is not worth the paper it is printed on. Scans of the original Hawaii Revised Laws from that era can be found at .

Why does all of this matter? This nation can not risk having a President who may harbor divided loyalties because the President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”

I'll close this post with a quote: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Mule Breath

Damn but the BLT gets some weirded out, fringe nut cases commenting on articles like this one. Orly has some dumbass followers, doesn't she?


Sorry about the typo. Meant to say that there is "NO difference" in the types of citizenship.


Mr. Hill,
There is Constitutional difference between US citizen and natural-born citizen.
If there were, then the so-called "anchor babies" born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents would be ineligible to be citizens, and would therefore not really be anchor babies.
There are not two classes of citizens.
Give it up, racist.

Robert Hill

Perhaps we can use this forum to establish what the Constitution means by "natural-born citizen".

I believe it means one who was born to citizens of the United States, not some other country like Kenya or Britain. The writers of the Constitution did not want anyone as President who had split or mixed loyalties . . . 100% loyalty to the United States of America.

To Eileen, Joy, Songbird and Epicurus it must mean non-ceasarean birth.


Posted by: RW: "Insanity IS sometimes defined as repeating the same action incessantly."

So your point is that Obama, and the Judges are insane because they insessantly refuse to address the question, and answer the question? I could agree with that one. Unforntunately that is not your point of view.
So which is worse? Having millions of people who want to have the question answered and ignoring them and wishing they would just go away instead of fessing up and answerting the question, which would be the correct thing to do.
Having millions of people asking the question and having someone like Orly that will do whatever she is capable of to get the question answerd, while being battered down, locked out of the system, threatened by judges, called names, and just plain treated by our government with no respect for the citizenship that she holds, and has documantation to prove it.

Jules Gilbert

Either we have a nation in which our laws mean what they say or we don't. And this isn't a meaningless "technical" violation. Our forefathers intended that the President would always be someone with a US-based context, someone who had grown up here, someone who had values typical of other Americans.

Now, in the Bible we see that when Israel needed punishment one of God's tools was to allow evil men (and women!,) to become leaders.

And when I look at the US, it's obvious that God is pursuing the same remedy here. For our sake I hope we are successful in lawfully putting this man out of office and trying him for fraud -- for that's exactly what he's done, he's committed fraud. First by his implicit claim to have met the qualifications for senator, and then he repeated this falsehood in his run for President.

And the effect of this evil has been to prevent other people, US citizens, who, presumably, would have obtained the Democratic nomination in his place.

American's, pray! Do not continue to ignore God. For if we do he will foresake us.

Read 2nd Chronicles, 7:14. It's really quite remarkable, here, Solomon wrote about 900BC and referred to Christians BY NAME, using the phrase "people called by my name".

Though Isaiah had other points to make, later he would use the same phrasing referring to Christians in America and generally in the west. (Isaiah used the convention of his times, talking about the lands to the west as "the islands", because the Americas were unknown generally.) He also made several other very specific remarks, for instance referring to Japan as the people in the "Land of the Rising Sun" before the adherents to the Shinto religion were making use of that term.

I say these things because I want people to recognize that God wrote the Bible. But none of it will help us unless we act. Talk to God. Ask for help. I assure you, Obama by no means pleases God. For one thing, he told those visiting Muslim school children that he's a Muslim.

I hope no one thinks that the Muslims please God -- that's absurd. Muslims worship somebody but read their books and talk to them, it sure isn't the God of the Bible!

Robert R Sewell Sr



The case is in the U.S. District Court--not the Supreme Court. Obama's criticism of a Supreme Court decision which upholds the Constitution is not only incorrect, it is in poor taste. The Supreme Court is an independent judicial body. In fact, Obama also took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Those who criticize Ms. Taitz for seeking the truth which calls into question Obama's Constitutional eligibility to be a U.S. president just don't get it and don't care. However, ignorantia legis neminem excusat.


Hahahahahahahaha...this woman seems to have very deep pockets to match her shallow intelligence. She will get laughed out of court one more time, and then hopefully just go away. Insanity IS sometimes defined as repeating the same action incessantly, while expecting a different result. Good luck, Ms. Taitz, you're going to need it.


President Obama's remarks at the State of the Union were hardly insulting. And I can "thank our Constitution" that all Americans are protected from Mike and Doug's "Lord".

Joy Sargent-Smith

So the Supreme Court should consider hearing a suit by this crackpot out of spite because Obama said he didn't agree with them on a bad decision on a totally different matter? God help us if individuals who make it all way to an appointment on the highest court in the U.S. aren't a little more professional than that.


Sanctioned by one court, she goes to another. Is she looking to be disbarred?

Mike Ryker

Praise God for you, Orly. Our prayers are with you. May He protect and guide you. Thank You so much for standing up for the truth.
Mike and Doug from Kansas City


now that "O" has insulted the Supreme Court perhaps they will consider her suit

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad