Posted on 04/08/2013 12:22:24 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Read the language in the following very carefully:
Alaska: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1404
"A person born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867, except a noncitizen Indian, is a citizen of the United States at birth."Hawaii: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1405
"A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth."Neither of those include the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement for birthright citizenship that applies to the rest of the country:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Before you guys go too far off the tracks, Honolulu County property records show that Loretta Fuddy has owned the apartment at 1629 Waikahalulu Lane, A211 since 1993. The mortgages listed on both her 2011 and 2012 Disclosure forms appear to be for that address. She may have refinanced the loans in 2012. And she may not be currently living there, maybe she bought a new house and the apartment hasn’t sold yet.
The gifts appear to be trip expenses where the sponsor picked up the tab. She may have been an invited speaker.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Beginning in 1924 the above language applied to ALL states INCLUDING Alaska and Hawaii, which would include Barry in 1961 IF Barry was born in HI.
Barry is not a member of the HI natives that were excluded from the 14A prior to 1900, nor is he a member of an AK Indian tribe that was excluded until 1924.
You are incorrectly reading the above Cornell language as applying to all states EXCEPT HI and AK. This is incorrect. The above Cornell language applies and applied ever since adoption of the 14A to ALL “persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” without exception in all states.
Between 1898 and 1900 HI natives were NOT subject to the jurisdiction, and between 1867 and 1924 certain AK Indians were NOT subject to the jurisdiction.
Rides3 is actually read the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. At the time it was written both Alaska (Section 304) and Hawaii (Section 305) were territories.
The 1965 amendments to the 1952 act didn’t make any changes to the language of those sections.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
Thanks for the link!
Where could we find the 1965 amendments?
Again let me express my thanks to you for this link!
I am not remotely an expert in these things, but the more I look at the $500,000.00, the more likely it seems to be something like the situation 4zoltan mentions in which Fuddy would have acquired a new home but retained the apartment which had formerly been her home--perhaps she may be planning to make a rental property of it. If indeed she was living in the apartment for the 2011 term of the first disclosure, she would have had no need to list her equity in it. Once she moved elsewhere, the property would have become subject to entry on the disclosure form in 2012.
Nevertheless, even if that scenario accounts for the appearance of the $500K apartment on the 2012 form (and its absence on the 2011 form), it still seems noteworthy to me that Fuddy's listed debt decreased from $272K to $194K (reduction of $78K) during the same interval that she apparently transitioned into a different home while maintaining ownership of the apartment, all while earning approximately a $100K salary. Once again, I don't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill (the digital evidence of document fraud is mountain enough for me), but it still leaves me wondering how Fuddy made that salary go so very far for her.
About the "gifts", again, I can see from the descriptions that these amounts are attributed to travel expenses. I didn't take the time to size up exactly what qualifies as gifts needing to be disclosed, but the amounts left a little question in my mind as to why it would be necessary to regard these things as gifts if they merely amounted to job-related professional travel expenses. I didn't feel the figures represented anything like a smoking gun, but I felt that I should get that data on the record as well in case someone who knows better than me what is normal and what is not could add some insight as to whether her "gifts" might be cause for concern. One thing I should have done (and still have not) was to see how officers of other agencies have typically reported their gift disclosures in Hawaii. My expectation would be that, so long as they are not frivolously exorbitant, travel expenses for professional conferences would tend to not be disclosed under the description of "gifts," but once again, for emphasis, I'm no expert about such things.
When I posted those links to the disclosure forms along with my speculative questions, I was trying to err on the side of providing too much information (especially given that Hawaii agencies sometimes suddenly revise their websites particularly with respect to the Health Department related matters) so that discerning people could weigh everything. I didn't want to overlook/suppress the data I stumbled onto in the forms, simply concluding in a vacuum that whatever minor suspicion I had was merely the product of my confusion and hyperactive imagination.
In general, if government figures were to be influenced through monetary gain, I would assume that the tension between legal requirements to report information and self-protective needs to keep it quiet may result in a strategy that technically satisfies the need to report but utilizes sufficient obfuscation that no one can easily see that graft is in play.
Besides all that, I can't deny that I take some pleasure in that thought that perhaps Ms. Fuddy knows a bunch of people are combing through her records to find anything they can that is troubling. If she is content to play games with the truth in front of an entire nation over a matter as weighty as lending her support to perjury and forgery conveyed through the White House website, then she should also have at least the little bit of stress that comes from knowing she is personally being scoured (within legal, reasonable means) by thousands of watchful eyes for signs of impropriety.
Even still, I would readily have this issue of the disclosures completely fade from sight if it doesn't hold enough weight to justify the energy diverted to it--and thus away from many other clearer indications of wrongdoing regarding Obama's identifying documents and the HDOH and the selective service system, etc.
Hawaii births were “subject to the jurisdiction” under the 14A to the same extent as in any other state in 1961. There was NO distinction for HI or AK births.
Statutes cannot change the constitution. Statutes can change naturalization of Indians and natives but not the birth status of 14A constitutional citizens, such as Barry claims to be in in HI in 1961.
Statutes cannot change the constitution.
Exactly so. Thanks for the clarification!
obumpa
Loretta Fuddy’s predecessor as Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino did much more damage to the Obama is ineligible movement than Fuudy even thought about doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk&de...
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
great work, congrats to butter and co.
I hope and pray that the 3 people in Hawaii whose existence poses a threat to Obama realize that they cannot be safe until they’ve told their story to the world.
We’ll never be able to prove what happened to Fuddy. The evidence has been compromised already; the NTSB has not been using their required protocols regarding the evidence. A plane that was mostly intact sank to the shelf and within about 5 days had supposedly fallen apart to the point that just pieces could be retrieved. According to the news report, the NTSB will get their first look at the wreckage when it is transported to them, yet the proper protocols are for the evidence to be handled as if it was a crime scene. Custody of evidence is important. Somebody from the NTSB was supposed to be there when the wreckage was retrieved. This crew brought up an engine but there is no way anybody knows if it is the engine from that plane, because the chain of custody has not been preserved.
That plane should not be falling apart that deep in the water. I think the report said 30-40 ft deep. But then, I don’t know how the plane wreckage could have been seen by helicopter if it was that deep either. The reports talked about how the wreckage was seen pretty much right where the plane went down. Are there currents 30-40 feet deep that within 5 days would tear apart a welded metal frame without moving it, or moving watches and jewelry?
It almost seems like the salvage crew is DISMANTLING the evidence, while the NTSB averts its eyes - against mandated protocol.
But these others in Hawaii don’t need to know exactly what happened, to know that they can just as easily be in a plane crash or have heart failure, or whatever. The only way to eliminate the motive of silencing them is by speaking up BEFORE they can be silenced.
That’s the critical take-away from this. They know who they are.
Absolutely nothing.
I remember a lawyer telling me “there are no surprises in Court.”
Not true.
A plaintiff makes allegations in a complaint. Court rules dictate the complaint is to be processed as if the allegations made are true. Before the defendant is required to answer the complaint with a denial, the defendant can move the Court to dismiss for lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, etc.
If the Court won’t dismiss, then discovery begins. In discovery, primary evidence is obtained from witnesses who have possession of the evidence or direct knowledge. A secondary witness has indirect evidence or knowledge; such as, a video tape of a naturalization ceremony where Obama can be seen swearing a loyalty oath to obtain U.S. Citizenship. Secondary evidence is ignored by the Court until its time for a rebuttal witness. A rebuttal witness will only testify and have their evidence examined if the primary witnesses testify the evidence does not exist or cannot be found. In Obama’s case, he could testify under oath a Certificate of Naturalization does not exist or can’t be found.
To ensure rebuttal witnesses are not harassed or intimidated, a rebuttal witness does not have to be named and have their evidence examined until the day of the trial. The only reason Obots and ConcernedFreepers want the rebuttal evidence before trial is to discredit it so Obama and his DHS Secretary can lie about Obama’s naturalization in 1983.
The evidence will be exposed when an plaintiff files a complaint against Obama and he lies about his Certificate of Naturalization issued to him in 1983. Evidence of Obama’s naturalization in 1983 will not be made publicly available for Obots and ConcernedFreepers to discredit, dismiss, or harass so Obama can continue to lie about his ineligibility.
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.