Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
The motion you linked to does NOT list him as the client they are representing, so your claim is not merited by the evidence you submitted.
If a document is forged, it would be helpful to have a court ruling declaring it to be forged, particularly since the state of Hawaii says that it is authentic and provides a link to a scanned image of it in PDF format from the Hawaii state web site.
Hawaii did NOT say it was authentic. A web site with a link to a PDF doesn't make anything authentic and it's not legal proof ofanythng.
If U.S. District Court Judge Wingate in Mississippi would like to see the original Certificate of Live Birth or Obama’s hard copies, he can issue a court order for them.
He shouldn't have to. A legitimate birth certificate is self-authenticating. Obama claims to have TWO hard copies. He can submit it. He doesn't have to be asked. It doesn't have to be ordered by the court.
Each judge issues an OPINION. If any particular opinion is not supported by sound legal precedent, a different court can issue a contrary opinion. However that has never happened in more than 300 lawsuits which now include close to 100 appeals of civil actions concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility.
Those 300 lawsuits were NOT decided on the same basis. We've been over this. There are just about as many different excuses for Obama as there have been lawsuits, and most were shoved under the carpet over procedural obstacles.
The anti-birthers have developed a twelve page long string citation for defense attorneys to submit with their briefs for judges who rule on natural born citizen/ballot eligibility cases. The string citation references the key rulings favorable to the defense, on Article II eligibility that have been issued since 2008.
I've got three Supreme Court citations that bust the "anti-birthers" string to shreds. Nothing outweighs those Supreme Court citations. Certainly these lower courts have figured out they can cherry-pick one or two misleading citations such as what Obama's apologists might come up with, but the Supreme Court's actual rulings are clear and concise and they make Obama and Cruz both ineligible. 300 more cases won't change that and more pages in a string citation will not change that.
If it's irrelevant, why are you trying so desperately to prove me wrong??
No Trier of Fact at any level has paid attention to the word nitpickers. And that includes hundreds of judges, 50 state Secretaries of State, 50 Governors, hundreds of state legislators, 50 state Attorneys General, hundreds of citizens who sit on state elections boards and ballot commissions plus the vast majority of the 535 members of Congress, all of whom cleared Obama for the presidency without a single written objection.
Speakng of "irrelevant," that's exactly what the "single written objection" comment is. I explained why. And you're wrong. One Secretary of State was unable to defeat the arguments.
While you examine the individual leaves on trees, you have missed the forest completely.
Nonsense. You're the one trying to add up a bunch of individual leaves hoping that it makes Obama into a real tree. I've simply given the Supreme Court's exact interpretation of natural-born citizen and neither Obama nor Cruz qualify.
I have no interest in “proving you wrong.” I’m simply pointing out what has already occurred in the real world over the last five years in 310 original jurisdiction, appellate and Supreme Court court rulings.
I already told you that Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer submitted written objections to George W. Bush’s 2004 Ohio electoral votes being certified due to what they alleged were voting irregularities in Ohio. That was allegations of POPULAR VOTE irregularities. The counting and certification of the Electoral vote was suspended and both Houses of Congress adjourned to their chambers and deliberated the objections.
Here’s a link to a You Tube video of the objection:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bdA1skqD0TY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbdA1skqD0TY
You have your opinion and you’re entitled to it. No elected or appointed government official who has had an opportunity to officially examine this issue has agreed with you is the reality.
Every state’s Secretary of State approved Obama for the ballot in 2008 and in 2012.
If Ted Cruz is on the Republican ticket in 2016, he’ll have my vote. You can vote for the unquestioned major party natural born citizen, Hillary Clinton.
From the Cato thread:
“That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. ..”
Correct, and the governing statute in force at the time of Obozo’s birth was the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.
That is not the statute that governs the citizenship of Ted Cruz.
The certification presented to the Secretaries of State were not all the same. Not even the same wording. and remember that Nancy Pelosi stepped in when the HI ComDem official refused to certify Obozo. No Obozo still does not have a clean bill of health as far as eligibility.
Each state has its own application forms that must be used in order to get on that particular state’s ballot, so there is no way that the wording could be the same.
For example, in order to get approved for the ballot in Arizona, the candidate him or herself has to sign a notarized statement attesting to being a “natural born citizen of the United States.”
Here’s a link to Obama’s Arizona form:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/11107727
Four years later, members of the Arizona Tea Party challenged the veracity of Obama’s ballot application and they asked Arizona Secretary of State Bennett to verify Obama’s eligibility. Bennett wrote to the Hawaii Registrar to request verification and he only agreed to put Obama’s name on the Arizona ballot after he received a Certified Letter of Verification.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Obama was also challenged in court in Arizona by a registered voter in that state(as he was in many other states). The court ruled that Obama did qualify for the Arizona ballot as a natural born citizen.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
The same process was used by the Secretaty of State for the state of Kansas:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
(See pages 1-5)
The absence of eligibility fact checking by Secretaries of State in Alabama and Mississippi is currently being heard on appeal before the Alabama Supreme Court (McInnish v. Chapman) and before a federal judge in Mississippi (Taitz, et. al. v. Obama, Pelosi, et. al.)
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-14.3#sthash.WifyRQ5g.dpuf
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
The governor of the state of HI stated that there was no certificate. The .pdf purported to be a copy of "the COLB" is clearly conjured. There is no hard copy certificate. The head of the HI registrars office LIED. In some cases they stated verbally that he was a "Natural Born American Citizen" (not United States Citizen). They are playing legal weasel word games with us.
The Governor of the state of Hawaii said that he could not release the birth certificate. He never stated that it was not there.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/114401004.html?id=114401004
And, as Fox News reported two years ago, the original is no longer stored with other birth certificates, it’s now kept in a safe.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
If any judge in America wants to confirm whether there is a birth certificate or not, they can issue a court order to inspect it, in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18 (b) (point 9):
“(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
The Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State requested and received Letters of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copies because their positions are not included on the list of persons determined to have a “direct and tangible interest.”
http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/252833/
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.
—
Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.
It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down; Abercrombie said.
For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.
—
My take on this:
a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
“it actually exists in the archives, written down”; Abercrombie said
—
What he found is a record of a late filing for a COLB that was received but because the supporting documents were never produced was never acted upon. Which means he was never issued a long form COLB.
What I think happened was SAD got knocked up. That she did not have the baby in HI, but may have had it in Canada. Probably in an unwed mother’s home there. That before she left HI to go have the baby she and grandma made an arangement with a Dr. in HI to handle the paperwork if she adopted the baby out. When she decided to keep the baby she had grandma contact the Doctor and they filed the paperwork that was filed. Not enough for HI to act upon.
So, there IS NO long form COLB for Obozo in HI. But they say that it is written down. Do you think they would have used such a vague statement had there been a real document to deliver. Not credible.
It gets worse from there. No record of a marriage of SAD to BHO, Sr., but a record of a divorce. No evidence that BHO, Sr. and SAD ever lived together as husband and wife. None. There is a divorce record but part of the supporting paperwork is missing.
His past it totally conjured. He has been a fraud all his life. I can see why he is bitter. He is a real bastard, with some expletives added.
As far as the statement that Abercrombie knew the young Obama family goes; it is a lie.
—
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/will_obama_silence_blundering.html
“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times just before Christmas, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’”
A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.”
—
This has been so long ago and there have been so many lies by Obozo and his supporters that I wish to not discuss this further. The issue has not and will not go away. Reason: because Obozo simply cannot tell the truth. He lies 24/7.
A politician told a lie? Oh my goodness, what is the world coming to?
Both sides have used this issue to rally their base of supporters and neither side wants the issue to go away. It’s a money raiser for Democrats and Republicans. Obama is still selling mugs and tee-shirts with the long form birth certificate image on them.
Also, there are still a bunch of appellate court rulings pending.
The potential Cruz candidacy has given it ( the constitutional meaning of natural born citizenship) new life.
The Supreme Court rulings are what keep Obama from being legitimate. The rest is a hodge podge of excuses and procedural hurdles.
I already told you that Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer submitted written objections to George W. Bush’s 2004 Ohio electoral votes being certified due to what they alleged were voting irregularities in Ohio. That was allegations of POPULAR VOTE irregularities. The counting and certification of the Electoral vote was suspended and both Houses of Congress adjourned to their chambers and deliberated the objections.
And your own source proved me right. The objection has to be over the voting count. And that's exactly what happened here.
You have your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
And my opinion is backed up by pinpoint, consistent citations of Supreme Court rulings. Yours is backed up by procedural hurdles and connect-the-dots wishful thinking from dozens of inconsistent rulings.
Every state’s Secretary of State approved Obama for the ballot in 2008 and in 2012.
Sorry, but this is still circular logic. Most simply took the filings at face value, and the few that heard objections swept it under the carpet.
If Ted Cruz is on the Republican ticket in 2016, he’ll have my vote. You can vote for the unquestioned major party natural born citizen, Hillary Clinton.
There will be Republicans who actually qualify for office. No need to allow a mistake to be repeated a third time.
The "process" in Kansas was unable to deny an objection that was filed. Obama's appearance on the ballot was only accepted at face value.
No, the gover of the state of Hawaii lied and said Obama's birth was written down in the state archives. He had the power to release the certificate under the state's Uniform Information Practices Act. He could have gotten a letter of verification, but funny how nobody seemed to be aware that they could do that much. And funnier still how a so-called close friend of the family couldn't get permission from Obama to disclose the certificate. Why are you buying a list of obvious lies??
And, as Fox News reported two years ago, the original is no longer stored with other birth certificates, it’s now kept in a safe.
Which begs the question as to why, when they could simply disclose it under the Uniform Information Practices Act.
If any judge in America wants to confirm whether there is a birth certificate or not, they can issue a court order to inspect it, in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18 (b) (point 9):
Hawaii doesn't have to comply with a court order from just "any judge." The law leaves it to the discretion of the DOH by qualifying the court order as coming from "a court of competent jurisdiction." Hawaii already showed they didn't want to cooperate with the SOS in Arizona.
The Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State requested and received Letters of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copies because their positions are not included on the list of persons determined to have a “direct and tangible interest.”
And yet Hawaii didn't want to include the Arizona SOS on the list of persons who could receive a letter of verification until they made him jump through a bunch of unnecessary hoops. Ironically, Hawaii refused to give a full verification of the facts as stated by these applicants. Weird.
Edge919 says: “And yet Hawaii didn’t want to include the Arizona SOS on the list of persons who could receive a letter of verification until they made him jump through a bunch of unnecessary hoops. Ironically, Hawaii refused to give a full verification of the facts as stated by these applicants. Weird.”
Both the Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State said that they were satisfied with the verifications that they received from Hawaii and both are now sure that Obama was born in Hawaii.
“Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (R), who earlier this month requested more information from Hawaii on President Obama’s birth certificate, has gotten the confirmation he needed.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/arizona-secretary-of-state-ken-bennett-satisfied-obama-was-born-in-united-states/2012/05/23/gJQAN1czkU_blog.html
“He [Secretary of State Kobach] said Kansas now has information from the Hawaii Department of Health certifying that Obama’s birth certificate posted on the White House website is the same as what’s logged in Hawaii.
‘That, for me, settles the issue,’he said.
He downplayed the idea that Kansas’ reputation took a hit because of the board’s delay, saying the board is quasi-judicial and needed to get records, no matter how strong or weak the objection was.
Kobach said the board needed more information, despite documents posted to the White House site and cases in other states.
‘I have no doubts now,’ he said.”
http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/17/2492998/kansas-expects-to-end-challenge.html
Edge919 opines: “Hawaii doesn’t have to comply with a court order from just “any judge.” The law leaves it to the discretion of the DOH by qualifying the court order as coming from “a court of competent jurisdiction.” Hawaii already showed they didn’t want to cooperate with the SOS in Arizona.”
Courts routinely honor out of state court orders, as often as they honor extradiction orders. The fact is that no one has been able to secure a court order from a judge to even test whether a Hawaii judge would order HDOH to produce the original Certificate of Live Birth for inspection.
Any statutory court: local, state or federal is a court of competent jurisdiction as long as it is adjudicating a case or controversy that requires the Obama Certificate of Live a birth as evidence.
Right, the Arizona SOS said it without even reading the letter of verification and the Kansas SOS was quoted after dealing with an uninvited Orly Taitz and several protesters in his face.
Whether courts "routinely" honor such orders, has nothign to do with the HI DOH. They've ignored their own disclosure laws.
An out of state court order from a judge would come to a Hawaii court not directly to the Hawaii Department of Health. If HDOH wanted to contest acceding to the out of state court order, they would be represented before a Hawaii judge by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office.
This would be in accordance with Article Four, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
And the RECORDS part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is why every other state has accepted what Hawaii says is an original, valid and accurate birth record of that state.
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.