Funny you're citing something that appeared in the Wikipedia article for the first time at the time you made your posting. Creating your own "proofs" are you not?

Besides, he'd never get a Hawaiian BC saying he was born in Hawaii. And the sentence seems totally out of the context it was put in. Why would a statement about his Chinese birthplace be corroborated by the totally unrelated interjection that "his Hawaiian BC is not authoritative", without even mentioning such a controversy in the first place?

Also, how does a document from 1870 that clearly states his alleged "Hawaiian birth" was based solely on someone's affidavit, have any relevance to a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1961 (or, the same, a COLB from 2007) that does not state such a limitation?

Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat-sen

Sun Yat-sen (12 November 1866 or 24 November 1870 – 12 March 1925)

Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county, Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau). The latter claim is likely to be correct, as the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was issued based on Sun’s typewritten testimony, rather than on any documentation from witnesses….

After receiving a few years of local school, at age thirteen, Sun went to live with his elder brother, Sun Mei, in Honolulu. Sun Mei, who was fifteen years Sun Yat-sen’s senior, had emigrated to Hawaii as a laborer and had become a prosperous merchant.

The certificate:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

A portion of the certificate reads: “……And it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands on the 24th day of November A.D. 1870…”

First off, Obama does not have dual citizenship. He did once, but it expired.

Second, there is nothing in the Constitution that clearly says “no dual citizenship.” For that matter nothing in the Constitution says that both parents have to be US citizens at the time of birth. It only says “a Natural Born Citizen.”

Well, what does that mean? Some say that Vattel, a Swiss philospher, defined it to mean two citizens plus born in the country. But the only translation available at the time of the writing of the Constitution did NOT use the words “Natural Born Citizen. It said that “the natives or “indignes” are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/#more-3446

So the term “native born citizen” cannot come from Vattel. Vattel may have believed that a citizen requires two parents who are also citizens, but since he never used the term “native born citizen” in any text published before the writing of the Constitution, the framers could not have been referring to him.

What did they refer to? To the commonly-used legal term “native born subject” that they, who were mostly lawyers, were familiar with. Native Born Subjects, as defined by Blackstone–who also was a popular writer at the time of the writing of the Constitution–is merely someone who was born in the British realm (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

The first US authority to use the term “Natural Born Citizen” was John Jay, in a letter to George Washington. But jay did not say that “native born citizens” must have two US parents or that the could not have dual nationality. He used the term without defining it. So, what was he referring to? Well, Jay was a lawyer and would become the first Chief Justice of the United States. He was very familiar with Blackstone and the British common law. In fact, he was the author of the first constitution of the state of New York and referred to the British common law in that document, saying that unless changed by New York statute, British common law continued to be the law. So, what was he referring to when he said “natural born citizen”? To the concept of Natural Born Subject in the British common law.

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

Where Obama was born is quite immaterial. Hawaii, Kenya, Canada, the Moon… it doesn’t matter. But the search for the birth certificate has kept the dishonesty of BHO’s presidency in the open. So the fight to view the vault copy of his birth certificate continues to serve a purpose.

What counts is the Constitution does not allow for a president with dual citizenship. This is something I wrote about months ago. In Obama’s case, it is the nationality of his father… which he acknowledges was British which determined his citizenship. His mother was underage when he was born.

As has been stated numerous times, “the British Mandate in the British Nationality Act” states that his father was British, since his mother was a minor she assumed her husband’s British citizenship … and that makes Obama British. Obama may be a naturalized citizen, but has never been a “natural born citizen” which requires that BOTH parents are US citizens.

The document Hawaii issued him is a Certification of Live Birth. It is the only birth document that Hawaii issues these days. Yes, there are original birth certificates, which some people have kept from the time of birth. DHHL has said that it PREFERS to see these originals. But it never said that it would not accept a Certification, and in fact DHHL tells me that it does accept the certification when the original has been lost, and then it looks for further information about the race of the applicant. It uses the certification as proof of birth in Hawaii, as the US State Department does.

Here is proof that Hawaii sends out only the certification of live birth and that it is considered the official birth certificate of Hawaii:

http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

Here is more proof: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx

Notice that he says that everyone in Hawaii gets the same document, the Certification.

Re: “In fact his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, born in Indonesia, also possesses a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii.’

No she doesn’t. I thought this was true also, but it turns out to be wrong. She is a naturalized US citizen. She never received the Certification because at the time of her birth her mother had been outside of Hawaii too long to qualify. You may ask, if the mother had qualified, would Maya have received a Certification? The answer is YES, but it could not have listed Hawaii as the place of birth. She would have received a Hawaii certification, but it would have, and must (since it was not allowed to lie) have listed Indonesia as the place of birth.

There is NO proof Obama was born in Hawaii and no smrsstrauss is wrong about.

If Hawaii did issue a document it’s not a Certificate of Live Birth, they issued him a Certification of Live Birth. In fact his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, born in Indonesia, also possesses a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii. The Hawaiian government itself states that a Certification of Live Birth is less accurate than a Certificate of Live Birth.

“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” Apparently there is something in the Certificate that is not on the Certification that Obama does not want the people to see.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ALLEGED: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE

My experience in the Southern District of New York before Judge Jed Rakoff taught me that if I am not able to summarize a cause of action for relief in five single spaced pages, in all likelihood there is no controversy; and similarly when Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor challenged Eastern District of New York Judge Edward Korman sitting on the three judge panel hearing my appeal from a Decision of Northern District of New York Judge Kahn in the matter of my request for a three Judge 28 U.S.C. §2284 on Gerrymandering in redistricting. Judge Korman complained about the excessive complaint length, Judge Sotomayor asked “So how many pages are enough – are ten pages a limit?” The Case got remanded back to the Rhodes Scholar Judge Kahn as a shorter amended complaint, but once there, there was a Motion to Recuse the Judge by a letter motion filed without a supporting affidavit that along with the request for a three judge panel was rejected again, and the 2004 action went back to Second Circuit with the Three Judge panel issue, now in 2009 sits awaiting a briefing schedule. A Baker v Carr type political issue with nationwide impact is a career breaker no single District Judge should face alone.
As such as shown in my supporting Affidavit, the DC Circuit docketed my motion to expedite the Motion to Recuse (see Exhibit 16), and notwithstanding the fact that the Judge’s credentials are stellar and were he the most qualified for normal DC Political matters, as with Judge Kahn in the Loeber et al v Spargo et al case this case is a career breaker that needs a workable solution – especially since I am to file a 2010 Census matter that should have the natural-born issue settled first.
There are facts that must be presented to a Quo Warranto Jury at trial and for they alone to judge: Was Barack Hussein Obama’s father at the time of his son’s birth a British Citizen? That the Court must set a time for a preliminary hearing to review the issue of facts in this matter before a jury trial is ordered.
That with a jury decision on the facts of the Father’s citizenship status at Barack Hussein Obama’s time of birth that make him a dual citizen and ineligible for POTUS; and then as a matter of law would be a decision rendered by a three judge panel, two District Judges and one Circuit Judge with 28 U.S.C. §2284, that needs to be expedited so were the decision appealed to SCOTUS, would save time without involving the DC Circuit. The decision on the law after jury trial must be expeditious as a National Security matter, especially since POTUS et al. are being coerced by every manner of enemy and grifter inside and outside our borders.
The thorny nature of my personal injury brought about by an otherwise simple FOIA case, in which I asked for the location of the mother at the time of birth, because the Honorable New York Supreme Court Justice David Schmidt refused to issue a subpoena of the DOS urged me to avoid a waste of time, I came here. In addition, since here, I ask for Barack Hussein Obama’s in esse information too. The politics involved form a Gordian Knot intertwined and inseparable from the FOIA matter and the ongoing actual fraud perpetrated by Barack Hussein Obama in esse et al.; the person whose bad faith with expertise in the application of my Constitution’s POTUS eligibility clause “natural-born-citizen” in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, exploits the weakness of the Clause without Judicial interpretation, a per son who uses the advantage of the separation of powers firewall between the Judiciary and the Congress, who as a member of the U.S. Senate outrageously operates on both sides of the wall, and just as John Marshal of the Adams administration caused the Marbury v Madison controversy then taken to SCOTUS then is heard by Justice Marshal himself.
The Bad-man wears an indelible badge of fraud recognizable by the nature of the underlying theory of jurisprudence doctrine as the best test of what the law actually is; because that person carefully calculated precisely what the rules allow and then operates up to the rules’ limits, and that are the real measure of actions by Barack Hussein Obama in esse, U.S. Senator Obama, attorney Obama, candidate Obama who all are forced to widely straddle beyond the limit. First by their own opinion of what the” natural-born-citizen” clause is as expressed by in the U.S. Senate’s Resolution regarding whether or not U.S. Senator McCain at birth himself were as if a “natural-born-citizen” and to wit Senator Obama votes with the Resolution 511 – that there both parents be citizens at his birth; but as an attorney with a history and published books the prior facts are contrary to the opinion are also calculated to handle the difficulty with his Dual citizenship with a British Citizen Senior at Juniors birth, and he decides to use the judiciary to block that interpretation of the Clause, and as such he acts with Eric Holder to erect a gauntlet to prevent adjudication with a straw-man conspiracy about the birth location rather than citizenship, while hiding the dual citizenship elephant in the room. The issue of facts associated with Senior’s citizenship status at Junior’s birth are controlling facts not a conspiracy, and therefore any plausible legal fiction necessary for Junior to usurp the POTUS. That as the trustee hand in the glove of the legal entity, they manufacture a conflict between an individual’s rights against the collective majority’s rights, and therefore, such is properly seen through the lens of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) for depriving persons of rights or privileges:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class or persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitle to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, hereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privileges of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

My supporting affidavit shows a prima facie pattern of fraud preventing justice in the FOIA matter with overwhelming political issues with nationwide and global significance. That based upon information and belief, even Jeffrey Taylor in order to continue in office for an additional 8 years made a deal quid pro quo; is not going to entertain a Quo Warranto as I have petitioned for, and certainly the usurper Eric Holder absolutely won’t. This matter is left to a single District Judge under the Quo Warranto statutory exercise of authority given by Congress.
The fact that there never has been an interpretation of what natural-born-citizen is, allows every opinion under the sun to flood the market place; and that matter must be decided herein first as a matter of law, by putting aside my FOIA matter, knowing that either way if the facts are determined and law decided, such renders my response in opposition to a partial dismissal as to the Usurper whose actions are void ab initio moot. However, any jury trial requires adequate discovery from the Defendants DOS and DHS; and based upon the Answer of April 23, 2009 to the Amended Complaint, such Answer mandates timely discovery with production of documents and interrogatories in preparation for jury trial whether done for Quo Warranto and or the FOIA statute matter. Discovery is necessary before the controversy is done, and as this matter is intertwined and inseparable belong together not apart.
That the supporting Affidavit with Exhibit 14 and 15 show I sent my request to Washington District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor, and are self explanatory. As such I will not repeat the argument herein other than to say, that Barack Hussein Obama in esse, the Usurper, actions while pretending as if the corporate office of the united States of America Presidency are void ab initio.
That as a matter dispositive herein the Quo Warranto demand that alleges Usurper is a dual British Citizen and American Citizen at birth is so by his own admission, and as such the Usurper is not eligible to meet the qualifications necessary for the POTUS office of trust to administer the USA. That the Partial Motion to Dismiss must be denied in its entirety, and Plaintiff granted relief including expenses and treble damage sanctions; and all the usurpers actions to defraud the Court and Plaintiff investigated with 18 U.S.C. §1965(c).
In Conclusion in support of a Quo Warranto jury trial and decision of law before a 28 U.S.C. §2284 three Judge Panel, Plaintiff as of right demands: a Quo Warranto statutory proceeding by this District Court with a jury trial on the issues of fact and decision on question of first impression; investigation of the actions of parties counsels with the usurpers; deny the Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint deemed pre-mature; a protective order for Plaintiff in this and all related proceedings that prohibits direct and or collateral interference by any of the parties associated with the Usurpers and or their agents; a preliminary hearing on the Quo Warranto matter with issue of a subpoena ordering appearance served by the U.S. Marshal Service upon all above named parties; and for further other and different relief as the Court may deem proper herein for Justice to be done.

Dated: May 26th , 2009 /s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk
Brooklyn, New York ___________________________
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse

http://dcist.com/2009/05/us_attorney_for_dc_resigns.php#_login

I am one of four serious citizens who each separately have asked for a Quo Warranto done by Taylor. His resignation right now stinks BIGTIME of quid pro quo with the Usurpers Obama and Holder. Stay tuned!

593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
http://www.strunk.ws