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.”
Doesn't it seem to you that 21-2-5 does apply since it is a federal office being sought? And wasn't a notice of candidacy filed?
The judge does say in her decision that there is prior precedent to support her decision.
It looks to me that the plaintiffs have to do two things:
1. Resubmit their complaints after the primary when Obama is an actual candidate.
2. Find a way to properly serve Obama in accordance with Georgia law.
Her decision says that the primary apportions delegates but does not elect an actual candidate.
After the primary is over and Obama is an official candidate for the general election, then the law applies.
Don’t forget though that even if the law applied, the appeal would have been dismissed because the plaintiffs did not properly serve Obama in accordance with Georgia law.
So the plaintiffs have to do two things:
1. Refile after the primary.
2. Find a way to properly serve Obama.
Doesn't it seem to you that 21-2-5 does apply since it is a federal office being sought?
And wasn't a notice of candidacy filed?
Why are you asking me? The judge said what the judge said.
If she was wrong then there will be grounds for appeal.
Laws are interpreted through precedence - if the question was raised before and it was determined in court that this particular law does not apply to primaries then that is how every judge in Georgia will interpret that law.
The judge cites specific prior precedence in saying that the SoS has no jurisdiction to interfere with political parties’ decisions on who they place on their primary ballots.
I think it is reasonable that it would apply but it seems Georgia case law disagrees with me.
...but it seems Georgia case law disagrees with me.
Well have you looked at the case law cited to see if it actually does agree or disagree?
And something else you should consider is that there just might be case law that hasn't been cited by the Court which would overturn its decision. It's become painfully obvious that some cases are used while others are disregarded.
And no, I'm not that familiar with Georgia case law and I can't give any suggestions on where to look so don't ask.
It was an effort to keep David Duke off of the Republican ballot!
Do you recall which law the plaintiffs were using?
Then the obvious thing to do is to sit back and see how it plays out in court.
Ah well, missed the / in </A>
No, I take no comfort whatsoever in your placating words.
Duke v Cleveland says the the Republican Party has the sole power to decide who they will place on their presidential primary ballot.
The appellate judge in Duke v Cleveland says that political parties have a first amendment right to choose their own candidates for primary ballots without state interference.
This is the same reasoning used to dismiss the latest cases when the judge said the SoS did not have jurisdiction.
On this particular issue I will unless you bring up any issues you want to discuss. All the arguments are on the table - just a matter of the courts grinding through the appeals and deciding.
Once again...Do you recall which law the plaintiffs were using?
Not O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193 or O.C.G.A. §21-2-191.
Sounds like skullduggery to me.
So you are actually tracking my hours? Interesting.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e)
It’s not a question of courage.
The Obot has been exposed.
Time is precious. Why pay for the same ground twice?
(now if he comes out with a real whopper I might have to comment)
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.