Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion
“Onaka’s legal response confirmed that Obama’s BC is not legally valid, and it is up to the other side to show evidence that Onaka’s verification is not genuine and accurate.”

In what venue? That is the problem. Who will be the defendant and in which court, state or federal? A plaintiff has to have standing (particularized damage attributable to the defendant not shared with the general population) to bring a civil cause of action and this has gone nowhere so far.

The full faith and credit clause tends to make lawyers steer away from challenging Hawaii's even minimal verifications of data elements seeming to affirm Barry was born in HI.

For a criminal charge, such as you are making, IIUC, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution.

Barry has $ millions to stall any civil or criminal case until after the election. They had years to game this out and cement the firewalls.

IMO, the only thing that could remove Barry prior to the election is positive proof that he was born somewhere else (such as the UK Kew archive showing a Kenya birth), or some kind of even more damning evidence that the LFBC was forged, such as a confession by the forger (neither are likely at this point).

47 posted on 08/18/2012 3:40:50 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Seizethecarp

I can’t do anything about the crimes already committed. The posse is so far the only law enforcement body willing to take that on.

But there are about to be some crimes committed. The legal presumption right now has to be that Obama’s HI BC is not legally valid. If Nancy Pelosi signs an OCON for Obama without having evidence to refute the presumption of regularity - specifically evidence that Onaka’s verification was in error - then she perjures herself.

At this point Obama can’t even get nominated as the Democratic candidate without perjuring himself and committing election fraud AND having the people who sign the OCON perjure themselves and commit election fraud as well. The DNC lawyer would have to suborn perjury and fraud to counsel any of them to sign any of the documents for Obama to get on any state ballot. That’s 50 instances of perjury and fraud these people are thinking about committing, in a setting where Eric Holder is about to lose his position as fox guarding the law enforcement henhouse.

Apparently Onaka thought better of playing chicken with the whole rest of the country, because he obeyed the law and told the truth when he could easily have lied instead, and let Eric Holder cover his behind (for a while).

The only thing Hawaii has presented that could be used as evidence that Obama has a legally-valid record is the 1960-64 birth index that had his name in it. But alas! I’ve already proven that it has legally non-valid records listed in it. So a name showing up in the 1960-64 birth index says NOTHING about the validity of the record.


49 posted on 08/18/2012 4:06:07 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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