Posted on 03/03/2012 7:02:42 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
Just a day after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Apaio presented proof the birth certificate presented by Barack Obama as proof he meets Constitutional eligibility to be president is a fraud, we have a story coming out of Hawaii that may provide problems for Obama.
Jerome Corsi writes:
Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.
“During the course of my employment,” Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), “I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.”
As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.
“Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,” Adams’ affidavit reads, “and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.”
1. Yes - he refused to submit it and the judge was prepared to order a summary judgement.
2. So Obama would give the judge a paper copy. The plaintiffs would question it. To settle the issue, the judge or SoS would request Hawaii send them a certified copy directly. Easy to see how it would play out.
3. Don’t know if it was against the law. Do you think Obama cares?
4. He sent it to Kemp as a political message.
5. Pointing out political reality is not supporting it. There is an entire thread about how the media was threatened to keep the CCP out of the news. Do you think for a second that sending two BCs as a political message would bother Obama? He plays bare knuckled politics.
6. Two separate issues. He ignored the court. He send a message to the SoS.
You really think they were not opened and looked at? What evidence do you have to support this?
2. So Obama would give the judge a paper copy.
Then why didn't he show up and do that?
The plaintiffs would question it.
Is that why he didn't show up with it?
To settle the issue, the judge or SoS would request Hawaii send them a certified copy directly.
The Defendant was ordered to produce evidence, not the State of Hawaii! The State of Hawaii had no obligation before the court.
Easy to see how it would play out.
I can imagine it playing out in a completely different way than that.
3. Don’t know if it was against the law.
And you don't care to know either, do you?
Do you think Obama cares?
He should.
4. He sent it to Kemp as a political message.
So you agree with the coercion of public officials?
5 and 6 aren't even worth responding to.
From earlier...Where have I threatened you?
Is today a day off for the Harlan of yesterday? You're far more...verbose.
What evidence do you have to support this?
I never claimed they didn't open it up you dolt!
I stated that he couldn't know what he was being sent until the envelope was opened.
@O.C.G.A. 16-10-94 (2010)
(a) A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence.
So what do you think now?
How did he conceal his BC? He refused to participate in an administrative hearing and was prepared to accept a default judgement.
Since he willing to accept a guilty verdict then how can you say he was obstructing the prosecution? He made the prosecution’s job easier.
Since he --- willing to accept a guilty verdict then how can you
say he was obstructing the prosecution?
You should really invest in another software program. The one you have leaves you hanging.
1. Because he thinks he is above the law? Because his lawyer correctly anticipated the outcome if he didn’t show up? Because he doesn’t want to address the issue in 50 different states but wants one case that he can take to the Federal Courts for a single decision? Given time I am sure someone can think of others.
2. See above. Since things worked out to his favor, it looks like he had good legal advice.
3. Of course he should care. Why do you think Obama gives a rat’s ass about the law?
4. Don’t think it is right. Think it should be expected - do you think Obama will fight fairly?
I think I will avoid the personal stuff from now on - your soliloquy on zotting yesterday made me realize that I don’t know all the personalities involved here at FR. Safer to stick to the facts and arguments so thing don’t get out of hand.
Same old Harlan - I’ve been fighting a virus for a week or so and today is the first day I have felt good. I am by nature a verbose person.
How did not showing the BC change anything? There were two possible negative outcomes for Obama:
1. Show BC and get kicked off ballot.
2. Not show BC and get kicked off ballot.
Number 2 was the outcome until the plaintiffs opened their mouths.
So how did not showing the BC materially effect the outcome of the hearing?
Have you send a letter to the Georgia AG pointing this out? What do you expect me to do? I have already said several times that Obama has no respect for the law.
So how did not showing the BC materially effect the outcome of the hearing?
Would showing the BC have materially effected the outcome of the hearing?
You ask with rhetoric, I answer with rhetoric.
What do you expect me to do?
I expect you'll keep doing what you've been doing...defending the indefensible.
I have already said several times that Obama has no respect for the law.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
So why do you defend his actions so strenuously?
Showing the BC would not have changed the possible negative outcomes - he would have been off the ballot regardless.
He was off the ballot until the plaintiffs opened their mouths.
Accepting a default judgement means there is no hearing, which means there is no requirement to produce evidence. Which means there was no evidence to conceal. I don’t think any court in the land would say that “I am guilty” could be construed as an attempt to conceal evidence.
So it looks like the Georgia AG disagrees with your interpretation of the law.
Again, I don't see how you could know that so I'll chalk that up to your stating your opinion.
He was off the ballot until the plaintiffs opened their mouths.
How do you know that? Silence got them nothing and Malihi could have ruled any way he chose, as is evident.
What other possible negative outcome was there. This was an administrative hearing - the only issue at hand was whether Obama was eligible to be on the ballot.
Only two possible results - on the ballot or off the ballot.
So you tell me - what difference would the BC make? On the ballot or off the ballot are the only two choices.
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.