Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Abbott Would Order TDP Chair Richie To Declare Candidate Obama Is Ineligible For The Job
jbjd ^ | 04.07.10 | jbjd

Posted on 04/07/2010 12:44:21 PM PDT by jbjd

I may not be able to explain why Barack Obama attracted support for his crusade to the White House from tens of millions of citizens notwithstanding he refused to disclose to these same sovereigns documentary evidence he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.

But I can explain that by refusing to disclose to the citizens of Texas under the Texas Open Records Act the documentary basis for Certifying to state election officials Mr. Obama was the eligible Presidential candidate of the Texas Democratic Party; under Texas laws, TDP Chair Boyd Richie admitted he lied about the candidate’s eligibility for President leaving him with no other choice but to declare Barack Obama is ineligible for the job....

P.S. In what could perhaps be characterized as a case of cosmic justice, the Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas who signed the opinion in Bradford v. Vento finding silence equals misrepresentation was none other than The Honorable Greg Abbott, presently the Attorney General of Texas.

(Excerpt) Read more at jbjd.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; gregabbott; lawsuit; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamacare; palin; republicans; teaparty; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 04/07/2010 12:44:21 PM PDT by jbjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jbjd

I feel like I stepped in the middle of a conversation. What does this mean?


2 posted on 04/07/2010 1:03:01 PM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the chariot wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
What does this mean?

Not a darned thing.

3 posted on 04/07/2010 1:06:56 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Don’t ask me.

If the guy perjured himself , he should be in jail.


4 posted on 04/07/2010 1:08:04 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

ping


5 posted on 04/07/2010 1:15:01 PM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

This means, the Republicans know that they could file a lawsuit in Texas to compel Boyd Richie to declare BO is ineligible, just like the Democrats to them in 2006. TDP v. RPT. But as that case says, individual candidates also have standing to file a lawsuit in state court, compelling the party Chair to declare a candidate ineligible. BUT THE LAWS WHICH ALLOW THIS AND WHICH WERE USED IN TDP V. RPT, WERE STATE OF TEXAS LAWS (even though the case was heard in federal court, because there was also a federal issue involved in that case). You have to do the work to understand everything; that is, read the 2 (two) CLOWNS posts or, listen to the podcast of my last show on Revolution Radio with drkate.


6 posted on 04/07/2010 1:36:06 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

It’s technical. You wouldn’t understand it. /s


7 posted on 04/07/2010 1:40:31 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

No court is going to overturn an election two years after the fact. HOWEVER, this is great news because Texas can, and should, force him to produce his official long form birth certificate or be denied a place on the ballot in 2012.

Get two more big states, like Florida and Ohio to do the same, and unless Obama produced his official long form birth certificate he would be shut out of a second term even if the Democrat Party kept him as their candidate elsewhere.


8 posted on 04/07/2010 1:49:45 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

“individual candidates also have standing to file a lawsuit in state court, compelling the party Chair to declare a candidate ineligible.”

Was Alan Keyes on the Texas ballot?


9 posted on 04/07/2010 1:49:49 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA

Neither FL nor OH is an applicable state for election fraud. (You have to do your homework; citizen complaints of election fraud are posted on the sidebar of my blog. These are nothing more than statements from ‘complaining witnesses’ alerting the AG, a crime has been committed in this state.

TX state laws allow a party Chair to declare a candidate eligible; and allow mandamus to be used to get party Chairs to do their jobs. Or subject party Chairs to Open Records law.

At least, TX is the only state I know of now that satisfies all of these requirements; and has an AG who was the Judge in the case that makes my point.


10 posted on 04/07/2010 2:16:52 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA

I forgot to add, stop interjecting straw dogs into the argument. I mention nowhere that any work in which I am involved has as its motive, a desire to overturn an election. We only elect Electors in November; the Electors elected BO in December. And nothing in the Constitution required them to vet their choice as to Constitutional eligibility.


11 posted on 04/07/2010 2:19:22 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

You mean, will he be on the 2012 Texas ballot?


12 posted on 04/07/2010 2:23:07 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

At least, TX is the only state I know of now that satisfies all of these requirements;
##
I don’t doubt that for an instant. However, any state can pass a law requiring candidates to provide specific proof that they are eligible to hold the office they are running for to be put on the ballot.

I want states to pass such a law.


13 posted on 04/07/2010 2:24:58 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

drip, drip, drip, drip . . .


14 posted on 04/07/2010 2:34:44 PM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA

But why bother? The election official in each state - in most states, this is the SoS - already has the authority to promulgate the rules to carry out his or her job. Why not just add the verification process to the rules? After all, just because a candidate cannot get his or her name on the ballot does not mean the Electors cannot still elect that person to be President. (Presumably, however, they wouldn’t dare!)


15 posted on 04/07/2010 2:43:30 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

Sounds good to me. Let’s work on that.

If he (or any other usurper) can’t get on the ballot in enough states he can’t be elected unless there is a wholesale sellout of the Electors. Of course, Arnold Rothstein fixed a World Series, so I guess Omama and his crew could fix the Electoral College. But if the nation is that corrupt no law or election will fix it.


16 posted on 04/07/2010 2:52:32 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

Good post and bump for later read.


17 posted on 04/07/2010 3:04:47 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
drip, drip, drip, drip . . .

Everyday new news and another revelation that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Drip drip drip indeed.

18 posted on 04/07/2010 3:09:02 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jbjd
So it could be possible that uhbama is NOT the federal president of Texas. Because the dem chair will admit to silence on the issue and it will be then declared that uhbama is not eligible and therefore NOT the PRESIDENT as far as all citizens of Texas are concerned.

btw-are there any jobs in Texas? Sounds like a smart state to live in just now.

19 posted on 04/07/2010 3:12:00 PM PDT by Republic (Stop the horrific liberals from spending ONE MRE DME before they destroy our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

“Candidate Obama Is Ineligible For The Job”

Unfortunately, events over the past 15 months have conclusively demonstrated Obama is thoroughly unqualified for his job even if he provides bullet-proof evidence of his
constitutional eligibility. The fact that he can’t/won’t do the latter simply makes the former that much more infuriating.
If doctors can be sued for malpractice, it’s a shame the trial bar won’t extend this concept to politicians.


20 posted on 04/07/2010 3:32:10 PM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Yes, but, my fellow citizens have the right to foist upon me, a President I determine is incompetent to do the job. I just hate it when he is also Constitutionally ineligible for the job, too!


21 posted on 04/07/2010 3:50:01 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Republic

He IS the President! (Obviously, people reading my work here are not as familiar with my blog as people reading my work, there.)

The people of Texas only elected Electors in November 2008. The Electors elected BO in December; according to the Constitutional description of their jobs, they could have elected HRC; or JMc; or...


22 posted on 04/07/2010 3:52:19 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

From Wikipedia:
“Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state’s right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, their vote can only be changed in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. However, in all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.”

Also, the state of Hawaii says that the short form COLB is the official birth certificate of that state. It is recognized by the federal government for passport and Social Security card purposes and the short form contains all the information required to establish eligibility to be president or vice president under Article 2 Section 1: date of birth, and place of birth.
Any law requiring ONLY a long form certificate in states that no longer issue a long form certificate is likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html


23 posted on 04/07/2010 6:24:23 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jbjd
After all, just because a candidate cannot get his or her name on the ballot does not mean the Electors cannot still elect that person to be President. (Presumably, however, they wouldn’t dare!)

Since the names of the electors do not appear on the Texas Ballot, (they do or did in some states), how would someone who wanted to vote for Obama get elected anyway?
...
Unless a "nonviable" candidate was put on the ballot, with the understanding that his/her electors would vote for Obama?

That would presumable be legal, since Texas does not punish "faithless" electors. The party generally selects the actual electors. In a very real sense, we are voting for the party, and technically are voting for the electors, not the candidate whose name appears on the ballot.

24 posted on 04/07/2010 6:49:28 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Are you saying Obama showed his short-form to the Texas SOS?? Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Just because a valid form might have valid purposes doesn’t make Obama’s particular form valid. It’s like saying a real dollar bill proves that Obama’s counterfeit dollar bill is real. Sorry that don’t cut it.


25 posted on 04/07/2010 7:25:30 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; BP2; rxsid

ping


26 posted on 04/07/2010 7:28:15 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or ...off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Wikipedia? I use http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/certificates.html And, given that citizens have demonstrated we know how to enact laws governing the conduct of Electors; this means, we know how to enact laws requiring them to vet their choice for President as to Constitutional eligibility BEFORE their election in December. (Plus, we need to rescind those laws requiring Electors to vote for the Party nominee, notwithstanding no ‘faithless’ Elector has ever been penalized under this law for a violation.

If we make criminal the conduct of providing false documents to election officials to establish eligibility to appear on the ballot - assuming we already enacted laws requiring all candidates on the ballot to be eligible for the office - then, we should see fewer people submitting false documents.


27 posted on 04/07/2010 7:38:33 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“In a very real sense, we are voting for the party, and technically are voting for the electors, not the candidate whose name appears on the ballot.”

Yes, exactly! And this is the part of the Constitution the political parties (which are not mentioned in the document) would have us forget. Because these Electors are loyalists of the Party! (Try reading NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 and 2) on my blog. This narrative touches on the highlights of the election process as they played out in the 2008 election cycle.)


28 posted on 04/07/2010 8:11:41 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jbjd
In order to prosecute someone for submitting false documents don't you have to prove that a document is false. To date there has been no formal charge, no indictment, no trial and no conviction of anyone for submtting false documents in the 2008 presidential campaign. If there had been a criminal investigation for forgery or fraud concerning the documents used to get on the ballot in any of the 50 states or District of Columbia, then a subpoena could have been issued for the original, vault copy documents and experts could have examined them for a Grand Jury. But no such investigation or indictment occurred. Since the state of Hawaii has vouched for the validity of Obama's birth records, it is probably too late for any such investigation to happen now. STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D. “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
29 posted on 04/07/2010 10:59:58 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Boyd Richie submitted a document to election officials swearing BO was eligible. Pursuant to requests under the Texas Open Records law, he had a duty to substantiate why. He deliberately did not. Under Texas law, this means, he lied when he swore BO was eligible.

Under Texas law, only the names of eligible candidates may appear on the ballot. Boyd Richie swore BO was eligible but no documentary evidence in the public record could establish such eligibility. Citizens submitted requests under the Texas Open Records law so as to obtain the documents used by the TDP in their Certification. They ignored these requests. Citizens reported to the AG, the crime of election fraud has been committed in our state. Investigate.

Your rationale as to BO’s eligibility has absolutely nothing to do with these facts. (Besides, whatever basis is used for eligibility must have existed BEFORE Mr. Richie swore to the eligibility on August 27, 2008.)


30 posted on 04/08/2010 4:10:10 AM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

That statement by Fukino admits that Obama’s original birth certificate does not verify his place of birth. Her statement about Obama being a ‘natural born American citizen’ is an outright falsehood.


31 posted on 04/08/2010 7:30:06 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: edge919

That statement by Fukino admits that Obama’s original birth certificate does not verify his place of birth. Her statement about Obama being a ‘natural born American citizen’ is an outright falsehood.


Jeez, I suggest that you stop lying when its so easy to catch you in your attempted lie.

“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. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

What part of “...verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii...” in her statement don’t you understand?
Dr. Fukino could have been (and still can be) sued or indicted for making false statements and a subpoena could be issued for Obama’s vault copy, long form Certification of Live Birth in connection with a lawsuit or criminal complaint against Dr. Fukino. Thus far, no one has taken either of those steps.
Only two courts have actually ruled on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen and those two courts ruled that Obama qualifies as natural born under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution. If some other court will rule differently at some point in the future remains to be seen. Several days ago, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the lawsuit that found Obama (and McCain) are both Natural Born Citizens.


32 posted on 04/08/2010 10:11:27 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

Boyd Richie submitted a document to election officials swearing BO was eligible. Pursuant to requests under the Texas Open Records law, he had a duty to substantiate why. He deliberately did not. Under Texas law, this means, he lied when he swore BO was eligible.

Under Texas law, only the names of eligible candidates may appear on the ballot. Boyd Richie swore BO was eligible but no documentary evidence in the public record could establish such eligibility. Citizens submitted requests under the Texas Open Records law so as to obtain the documents used by the TDP in their Certification. They ignored these requests. Citizens reported to the AG, the crime of election fraud has been committed in our state. Investigate.

Your rationale as to BO’s eligibility has absolutely nothing to do with these facts. (Besides, whatever basis is used for eligibility must have existed BEFORE Mr. Richie swore to the eligibility on August 27, 2008.)


A sworn deposition from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Health Department might be needed to corroborate her media releases on this issue.

“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. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Since the state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth records it doesn’t seem likely to me that Mr. Ritchie will have any problems with the law in Texas.

Mr. Ritchie’s answer to the question is “a copy of the Barack Hussein Obama II’s Certification of Live Birth issued by the state of Hawaii.”


33 posted on 04/08/2010 10:25:35 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Jeez, I suggest that you stop lying when its so easy to catch you in your attempted lie.

There's no lie in what I posted.

What part of “...verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii...” in her statement don’t you understand?

The issue isn't whether she made a claim about birth, but upon what document she is making the claim. She is NOT making this claim on the basis of the original birth certificate, nor by default a legitimate COLB, which is supposed to have prima facie value in court. IOW, if the original birth certificate (or the COLB) proved Obama was born in Hawaii, it is the ONLY document she needs to cite. She only needs to cite supplementary documentation if the original certificate is not sufficient to prove place of birth. The original birth certificate was sufficient for her statement on October 2008, but not sufficient in July 2009. Fukino did state a falsehood by declaring that these documents verified that Obama was a 'natural born American citizen.' There is no vital record in Hawaii that declares ANYONE to be a natural born American citizen.' Game. Set. Match.

Several days ago, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the lawsuit that found Obama (and McCain) are both Natural Born Citizens.

What lawsuit said this??

34 posted on 04/08/2010 11:39:49 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

You keep making a mistaken assumption. Fukino’s statement doesn’t verify any birth records ... unless she produces these records and shows that they are indeed birth records. She might be referring to political affadavits, correspondence to her office, e-mail or even newspaper articles. There’s no evidence she’s referring to a birth record in support of her undocumented claim that she saw records verifying Obama was born in Hawaii. We do know she was not referencing the original birth certificate.


35 posted on 04/08/2010 11:42:57 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Silly goose! The law does not say, jamese777 gets to substitute his reason for believing BO is a NBC; the law requires that when citizens asked Boyd Richie on what basis he Certified BO was a NBC; he had 10 (ten) days to respond with that information. Besides, WH Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to OFA and the DNC Services Corporation, thought the best evidence BO was a NBC was his - BO’s - word to federal Judge Robertson, he - BO - had publicly produced his Hawaiian birth certificate. I seldom question anyone’s motives but, in this case, I must assume you are joking by suggesting we accept your proffer of ‘evidence’ as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, that is, an affidavit from HI DoH officials; but reject the evidence proffered to the federal court by WH Counsel Bob Bauer, on behalf of his client, Defendant BO.


36 posted on 04/08/2010 12:09:55 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You keep making a mistaken assumption. Fukino’s statement doesn’t verify any birth records ... unless she produces these records and shows that they are indeed birth records. She might be referring to political affadavits, correspondence to her office, e-mail or even newspaper articles. There’s no evidence she’s referring to a birth record in support of her undocumented claim that she saw records verifying Obama was born in Hawaii. We do know she was not referencing the original birth certificate.


There is no “assumption” on my part. I have only stated facts. The Hawaii Certification of Live Birth IS an official birth record.

You are dead wrong on what Dr. Fukino actually said yet again: “...the original vital records...” in her statement IS verification by the state official charged by statute with making such verifications.
A “political affidavit,” “correspondance,” “email” or a “newspaper article” is NOT an “original Vital Record.” Hawaii laws explicitly spell out EXACTLY what are to be considered as vital records. The primary categories are birth records, death records, adoption records and marriage and divorce records.

Dr. Fukino is backed up in her verification by the further corroboration of Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Records for the state of Hawaii who also has reviewed the original Obama vital records. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.

Dr. Fukino has already released the Index Data record for Barack Hussein Obama II. It verifies that the state of Hawaii has a BIRTH RECORD for a male child named Barack Hussein Obama II. You can see it for yourself here:
http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/obama.html

That information is further corroborated by the two birth announcements for a male child born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama on August 4, 1961 which appeared in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten and the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961 and August 14, 1961.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
Those announcements came from the Health Department’s statistics and not from family or friends.

The point is that those trying to disqualify Obama at this late date have a very high legal mountain to climb. Obama is under no obligation to prove his eligibility, his opponents have to prove him to be ineligible: “presumption of innocence.”
At the bottom of every Hawaii Certification of Live Birth it clearly states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”


37 posted on 04/08/2010 12:51:14 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

Silly goose! The law does not say, jamese777 gets to substitute his reason for believing BO is a NBC; the law requires that when citizens asked Boyd Richie on what basis he Certified BO was a NBC; he had 10 (ten) days to respond with that information. Besides, WH Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to OFA and the DNC Services Corporation, thought the best evidence BO was a NBC was his - BO’s - word to federal Judge Robertson, he - BO - had publicly produced his Hawaiian birth certificate. I seldom question anyone’s motives but, in this case, I must assume you are joking by suggesting we accept your proffer of ‘evidence’ as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, that is, an affidavit from HI DoH officials; but reject the evidence proffered to the federal court by WH Counsel Bob Bauer, on behalf of his client, Defendant BO.


Hey, you go right ahead. Have fun going after Boyd Ritchie. Enjoy!
And no, I have no need whatsoever for you to accept the state of Hawaii’s “proffer of evidence” which I referenced. Judges and justices across the nation will continue to define what “evidence” is real and what “evidence” is irrelevant just as they have for the past two years. They are the ones who ultimately matter, not you or me. So proffer away!


38 posted on 04/08/2010 1:06:01 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Obama could have been born on the White House lawn.
HOWEVER -
Obama admits that Obama Sr is his father.
His father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. He was a British citizen (since Kenya was ruled by UK).
Therefore, Obama has dual-citzenship which renders him NOT a NATURAL born citizen and therefore, ineligible for the Presidency according to the Consitution.
Game Set Match


39 posted on 04/08/2010 1:13:21 PM PDT by GYPSY286 (Politicians must USE their heads or Americans will LOSE their heads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GYPSY286

No court has ruled that one’s parents have any bearing on a born-citizen’s status as being Natural Born. The only case to try to apply that tactic with Obama was the case of Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. The original trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen under the Constitution. Just last week the Indiana Supreme Court refused to take the Ankeny case on appeal.
Vice President Cheney would have never certified Obama’s electoral college votes if he was not eligibile and Chief Justice Roberts wouldn’t have sworn him in.
Obama’s dual citizenship under the United Kingdom expired when Kenya gained independence when Obama was 2 years old and his Kenyan citizenship expired when he was 23 years old.
Kenya does not accept dual citizenship for adults so he stopped being a Kenyan citizen at age 21 but Kenya provides a two year window to make up one’s mind about which citizenship they want to retain. Obama would have had to make a decision at that time, Kenya or the US. He made no such decision and therefore he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship then.

Obama is the 7th US president to be born with foreigners for parents. The others were Herbert Hoover who had a Canadian-born mother; Woodrow Wilson’s mother was English; Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers; Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England; and both of Andrew Jackson’s parents were born in Ireland.


40 posted on 04/08/2010 2:15:04 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Ah, jamese777, so off put by logic, you can no longer see straight. I am not going after Boyd Richie in court - by the way, no “t” in Richie - nor am I advising other citizens to do this. Ha, this would be ridiculous because 1) I am not a citizen of Texas; and 2) this law that underlies such a suit only applies to Chairs of political parties (and certain candidates for office). Get it? Rather, I am merely pointing out, if the RPT had wanted to remove Mr. Obama’s name from the ballot in 2008, under Texas law, they had standing in state court to do just that. And they knew how to do it because the TDP had done this to them. Or, they can file suit now to keep BO’s name off the 2012 ballot! You sound angry because I rejected your proffer of proof outright inasmuch as your ‘advice’ was contradicted by WH Counsel Bob Bauer.

I know this. The best piece of evidence Bob Bauer had in January 2009 to establish his client, Barack Obama, was a NBC; was the Certification of his Nomination signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for the job, meaning, he is a NBC, delivered to election officials in HI to get his name printed on the ballot. Because every other item proffered by Mr. Bauer at best could only establish, his client was a “native.” (Note, Mr. Bauer only offered his client’s word such a HI birth document existed; he failed to submit such document to the court. LOL.) So, here was the choice: give the court your word your client produced a piece of paper showing he was born in HI; or produce the Certification of Nomination signed by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession, with all of the gravitas that entails, swearing he is Constitutionally eligible for the job, and which Certification was used to get his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allowed the names of eligible candidates to be printed on the ballot. And Mr. Bauer withheld Ms. Pelosi’s Certification. Know why? Because he could not get one client - BO - out of a civil mess by producing a document that would expose another client - NP - to criminal liability.

Maybe that’s why NP (and DNC Secretary Alice Germond, who co-signed those Certifications) refused to respond to citizen requests for the documentary basis for those Certifications; except to say, the DNC is not a public agency and therefore, they do not have to provide this documentation.

But this ‘get out of jail free’ card does not work in Texas. Yee Haw!


41 posted on 04/08/2010 4:29:33 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

I’m getting out the popcorn and melting the butter to prepare myself for these big legal events that are in store for us all. I can’t wait!
I’m just sorry that none of this evidence was available for any of the 537 members of Congress for the Joint Session of Congress to certify the vote of the Electoral College. It only would have taken any one Representative and any one Senator to submit a written objection to Vice President Cheney’s certification of Obama’s electoral college votes. But alas, that didn’t happen. Oh well, better late than never I guess.


42 posted on 04/08/2010 5:29:08 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
A “political affidavit,” “correspondance,” “email” or a “newspaper article” is NOT an “original Vital Record.” Hawaii laws explicitly spell out EXACTLY what are to be considered as vital records. The primary categories are birth records, death records, adoption records and marriage and divorce records.

Yet when requests were made for copies of e-mail requests and correspondence related to Obama's birth records and any subsequent amendments, the DOH replied that these documents were considered to be part of the vital records. IOW, they were saying that anything they wanted to consider sacred could be protected by calling it part of the vital records.

But, I agree wiht you that there are only birth, death, marriage and divorce records maintained by the DOH. When they changed their specificity from 'original birth record' in October 2008 to 'vital records' in the plural in July 2009, this was a direct admission by Fukino that the original birth record was insufficient by itself to prove the place of birth. Whether e-mails and newspaper articles are sufficient, I say, let's have full disclosure

Dr. Fukino is backed up in her verification by the further corroboration of Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Records for the state of Hawaii who also has reviewed the original Obama vital records. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.

Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. only helped verify that an original birth certificate was on file, nothing more. THAT ... is the way it is.

Dr. Fukino has already released the Index Data record for Barack Hussein Obama II. It verifies that the state of Hawaii has a BIRTH RECORD for a male child named Barack Hussein Obama II. You can see it for yourself here:

Yet this doesn't confirm a place of birth nor does it preclude that amendments have been made to Obama's birth record ... and most importantly it does nothing to confirm that the whole of Obama's alleged COLB is genuine. Incidentally, up until at least 1990 the Index Data included the certificate number. In other states, the certificate number is still part of the birth index. Yet when faced with a slam-dunk proposition of confirming that the certificate number in the factlack photos is genuine, the DOH has balked. Wonder why.

That information is further corroborated by the two birth announcements for a male child born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama on August 4, 1961 which appeared in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten and the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961 and August 14, 1961.

Right, and those publication dates along with differing publication dates and lower numbers on the Nordyke twins' BCs helps corroborate that the certificate number on Obama's alleged COLB is fraudulent, but those same newspaper announcements do NOT corroborate a place of birth.

Those announcements came from the Health Department’s statistics and not from family or friends.

You're not telling the whole story. Without seeing an original birth certificate, we don't know who reported Obama's birth to the Health Department, so yes, that information, BY LAW, could have come from family or friends.

The point is that those trying to disqualify Obama at this late date have a very high legal mountain to climb. Obama is under no obligation to prove his eligibility, his opponents have to prove him to be ineligible: “presumption of innocence.” At the bottom of every Hawaii Certification of Live Birth it clearly states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

Great point. A quick way Obama could resolve any doubts would be by entering his alleged COLB in a court of law to see if it passes scrutiny. The Kenyan chicken refuses and has made the HI DOH pick up and cover for his lazy, fraudulent ass. What kind of scum does that?? Do you know??

43 posted on 04/08/2010 7:30:17 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You poor dear! jamese777 is picking on everyone else because he got nowhere with me; I have too many facts at my disposal. Right on my blog.

For example, there never was a newspaper announcement. APFC said there was, on their site; well, actually, they admitted, they stole the image they posted of what looked like a newspaper birth announcement, which had no name of the publication, from a pro-Hillary blog! Indeed, you had to click on the image on the APFC site, to catch the original site was td! And, without any further investigation, they said, this proves, BO was born in HI. Then, in the Hollister case, WH Attorney Bob Bauer asked federal Judge Robertson to take judicial notice that APFC “noted” a contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement! Do you get this? Take notice an image only visible through a computer screen, unattributed, was “noted” by APFC? Can you spell HUBRIS? What do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have done with such notice that APFC said there was an image? Why, he could have turned that notice into the meme, there actually WAS a contemporaneous birth announcement. But there wasn’t. How do we know? Because APFC told us. And Bob Bauer told us, by not submitting an actual CONTEMPORANEOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT. (Just read one citizen complaint of election fraud to state A’sG in applicable states, in the sidebar on my blog. It’s all spelled out.) http://jbjd.wordpress.com


44 posted on 04/08/2010 7:57:14 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

When contacted by their constituents who were concerned that BO was not a NBC, several Congresspeople, responding in strikingly similar language as if they had conferred in advance, dismissed these concerns. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/ I cannot say whether they were ill informed or just motivated by other interests.


45 posted on 04/09/2010 6:51:13 PM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jbjd

When contacted by their constituents who were concerned that BO was not a NBC, several Congresspeople, responding in strikingly similar language as if they had conferred in advance, dismissed these concerns. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/ I cannot say whether they were ill informed or just motivated by other interests.


Let’s not forget that there were 219 REPUBLICANS sitting there at the Joint Session of Congress held to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College. All it would have taken is any TWO (one Representative and one Senator) of those Republicans to object to the certification of Obama’s Electoral Votes due to his alleged ineligibility and both Houses of Congress would have had to hold investigations into the reason for the objections.
Not only did Vice President Cheney, in his role as President of the Senate not ask for objections, none of the Republicans lodged a point of order to make sure that objections were called for.
You can’t blame it all on Pelosi.


46 posted on 04/09/2010 7:33:38 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

jamese777, who forgot? Haven’t you read the article that is the subject of this post? Who is letting anyone off the hook for not vetting this man as to Constitutional eligibility, even though no provision of any law, state or federal, including the Constitution requires such vetting? Read my blog. I maintain that the R’s are as culpable as the D’s in this situation. And that the R’s have the power in Texas to initiate a suit to prevent BO’s name from getting on the ballot in 2012; and have known since at least 2006 how to keep his name off the ballot in 2008.


47 posted on 04/11/2010 5:54:47 AM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I absolutely agree.


48 posted on 04/11/2010 5:57:30 AM PDT by jbjd (http://jbjd.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The Certification Of Live Birth IS the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since 2001 and Obama’s been available for the entire world to see since June, 2008.
The St. Petersburg Times newspaper got a copy of that document and sent it back to the state of Hawaii to confirm its authenticity. Here is what they said when that occurred:
“When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

‘It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,’ spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

If any one orders their “birth certificate” from Hawaii, they get the exact same short form COLB that Obama has and the US Federal government accepts that document as official proof of birth. Obama will never need to show any other document to anyone in order to prove where he was born.

If it was possible to order a long form certificate, someone, anyone would have ordered their long form by now and received it from the state to prove Obama wrong.
NO ONE HAS!!!

The state of Hawaii has gone on the public record saying that Obama was born there.

If anyone wants to see Obama’s long form, let them find a prosecuting attorney to subpoena it.
NO ONE HAS!!!


49 posted on 04/11/2010 10:45:35 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Spokesbabe Okubo used what must be an ‘official’ validation procedure. She said Obama’s alleged COLB looked just like her own. Later, when it was pointed out that no seal nor registrar’s signature could be found anywhere on the jpg, Okubo admitted she couldn’t tell if it was real or not. Like a lot of faithers, you glazed right past the part. Since that debacle, the HI DOH has never come back and said it’s real.


50 posted on 04/11/2010 11:29:50 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson