The short form birth certificate he has shown IS real, but WAS (emphasis added) filed under false pretences.
Keyes is ACCUSING him, it is not proven. The previous court threw it out because the Hawaiian Health department says that it's valid. You are implying that a health official is commiting purgery and that a federal judge was obscructing justice.
Now, I'm not in law school, so I'll need a lawyer or law student to back this up. But I am fairly sure I am right, from personal experience in the courts.
I understand you are questioning the pretenses, but courts don't work that way. Their job is to decide legality not facts. If the Health Department says that he was born in Hawaii and there is no admissable or significant evidence to the contrary, then as far as the court is concerned he was born in Hawaii.
Now, if there were facts in question (which the federal judge says they are not) then they would need a jury to decide which set of facts is the truth. If your theory were true it would be a criminal case, they would have to convene the grand jury in a situation like this. The grand jury would weigh both sets of facts and decide whether it should go to trial. Keyes is approaching this a civil case. The problem is, even if there were a Kenyan birth certificate dated before the Hawaiian one, then he would still side with Hawaii; since domestic state records trump third world country records. There has been no Kenyan BC presented yet, anyway.
On the issue of his status as Natural Born Citizen, at the time his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on Obama if he had been born abroad. However the law has since changed. She did bring him back with in the law to confer it. Which is why the Hawaiian HD would have made a birth certificate, because it wouldn't have mattered. Of course since then the law has changed and the mother's age doesn't matter. So if it went to court the judge would have to take into a account the retroactive nature of that law.
Retroactive law cannot be applied to Art. II SI of the Const.--
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
It doesn't matter to the court what the facts in reality are, only what the provable facts are; official documents show and previous court decisions.
The official documents were fraudulent by 1961 Hawai'i b.c. standards and were proven as a template doc. It listed the races wrong with today's p.c. terminology.
That is the reason why I laugh at this case, because it's not going to go anywhere.
In addition, Philip J. Berg has legal standing because he is a Constitutional lawyer and not "just a citizen" as his Penns. District SC stated. It should not matter who brought it up. Would we sit down for armed British troops in the New England harbors for calling us "just plain and rebellous citizens?"
edit: My sister is a Law/Education double major @ JMU so I know what I'm talking about.
