Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
'For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself'
A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.
The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.
In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.
“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In case you haven’t read Klaymans letter to the 50 state SOS/AGs, a copy of the letter is available here:
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/09/BauerLetter.pdf
A copy of the letter with attachments is available here:
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
I don't agree with this negative perception.
Larry Klayman has just opened to the door to legitimate legal inquiries in many, if not all, states.
It's up to the grassroots to provide political motivation for that inquiry by any and all SOS/AG's who can be presented with the proper questions to ask.
All you have to do is compose a one-page cover letter, attach a few pages of the best supporting documents, and present it for distribution by freepers and others of a similar mind-set.
I've even given you examples in response to your questions here, repeatedly, of how to frame such a letter. Why not direct your energy to attempting that, instead of shooting the notion down?
I don’t see that any investigation is needed.
It is a simple matter. Democrat Party officials can not certify that their candidate is eligible since there is no legally probative Hawaiian birth record upon which they can claim his identity, citizenship, or eligibility.
The best (concise) supporting documents would be Klaymans’ letter and attachments.
As far as providing this info (cover letter, attachments, etc) to local officials, the idea has some merit. I’m not certain that they would accept it, or if they did that they would read it and follow up with the SOS or AG.
Perhaps a multi-pronged approach. Work the bureaucracy bottom up as you suggest, as well as generating public awareness.
Klaymans letter is a major development, yet it is off the radar of most people. I think public awareness would help compel performance on the part of state election officials.
No ID no ballot. It’s completely reasonable.
I can’t write something I don’t even understand the rationale for. If you think this is the way to go I urge you to go for it.
Placemark.
Are the Obamas going to rent the property? They can’t afford to buy their own house by now?—pitiful
That bio that BO wrote himself is all the proof we need. So simple.
I’m sorry, but what fake ID are you talking about?? Obama hasn’t had to produce any IDs. The only thing he has to do (at most) is a signed, self-declaration that he is Constitutionally eligible for office.
I’m sorry, but what fake ID are you talking about?? Obama hasn’t had to produce any IDs. The only thing he has to do (at most) is a signed, self-declaration that he is Constitutionally eligible for office.
He’s never submitted a birth record for any official purpose regarding his eligibility. Arguing from the standpoint of what Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. has legally confirmed or not means nothing; we don’t have to have “legal birth facts.” As long as Obama claims to be born to a foreign-national father, when there’s no evidence to show otherwise, then his eligibility can be decisively challenged under a clear and consistent legal precedent. The burden of disproving that falls on Obama; and if he does try to disprove this, then it shows that he knows his birth credentials are fraudulent and THEN there would be an additional and obvious case for criminal fraud.
Suggest you read the links in post 441
Realize: Democrat Party officials can not certify that their candidate is eligible since there is no legally probative Hawaiian birth record upon which they can claim his identity, citizenship, or eligibility.
It is impossible for them to certify what they can not know.
Nonsense. That's how he got elected in 2008. There's no requirement for anything more than a self-declaration or affadavit based on a signature.
Bennett’s request was the legal step within our system that is supposed to prevent the past 3 years’ mess from ever happening. He asked an honest question, he got an honest answer as required by Hawaii law, and now the truth is known. It was so easy. If only it had been done in 2008!
Were you not paying attention?? Bennett accepted the "honest answer" as making Obama eligible to be on the ballot. Whatever truth you think is known, no one else is going to do anything about.
Impossible??? They’ve already done it once. This is 2012, not 2008. Obama has already been elected. Let’s work on what can actually be done now. There’s no requirement for Democrat Party officials to use “legally probative” birth recrods to establish Obama’s identity, citizenship or eligibility. We can prove that the Supreme Court has a clear and consistent and UNANIMOUS legal precedent that requires persons to be born in the country of citizen parents in order to be natural-born citizens as required in the eligibility clause. The best evidence shows Obama was born to a foreign parent. He is NOT and cannot be a natural-born citizen. Election officials have a precedent to follow in keeping Obama off this year’s ballot. It needs to put in their faces and pressure must be put on them to do their jobs. This would be the burden of proof on Obama to show anything to the contrary, at which point it would mean he would have to disprove his own birth certificate. If he does that, then he is exposing himself as a fraud. Asking for investigations on a wishful interpretation of what Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. has said will be fruitless, it doesn’t prove Obama is ineligible for office OR that he himself has committed any kind of fraud.
Right, and how do you prove perjury and on what basis??
Presumably you have read Klaymans letter to the 50 state SOS/AGs. If not, please do so.
They now know that there is no legal basis on which to assert Obama’s identity, citizenship, or eligibility.
If a Democrat party official attempts to affirm eligibility of their candidate they are committing perjury.
If a state official accepts or uses a known false representation, such as an Official Certificate of Nomination from the Democrat Party, they are committing perjury.
What I propose is showing a clear judicial precedent and attacking Obama on his self-declarations, which make him ineligible. It's much simpler, easier to prove and it shifts the burden of proof in order for Obama to challenge or appeal. Luria v. United States cites Minor specifically on defining presidential eligibility outside the 14th amendment and in accordance to the law of nations. Birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to be a natural-born citizen, and birth to a foreign-national parent disqualifies Obama from being Constitutionally eligible. Then, you can follow this to say there's no legal proof Obama was born in the U.S., thus Obama must not be placed on the 2012 ballot. The Supreme Court is our highest judicial authority and the states must follow that precedent.
The point I have not been able to get across, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE - NO ONE can swear to the identity, citizenship, or eligibility of "Obama"!
How can the NBC question be reached without first determining WHO, WHERE BORN, and to WHOM? It can't be done.
Taking Obama "at his word" when the documents proffered on the WH website and to which Obama directs attention are documents known to be fraudulent representations omitting material facts, is perjury. Both the party officials submitting the OCON as well as the SOS or other election official accepting or using the perjurous certification submitted with the OCON by the party officials, are committing perjury.
Perjury and document fraud are, in my opinion, less "esoteric" than NBC (I don't believe it to be esoteric at all, but I can not come up with another word) and are going to be easier to get a court to rule on and they will have less room for their nonsense.
Might they do it? Yes. That's when the bright light of public attention must be brought to bear. Put it right on the SOS. Get law enforcement to investigate.
We know the courts are corrupt and will screw us around, they have for years. Time for something new. It's going to take public pressure and something everyone understands: fake ID.
I encourage anyone pursuing the NBC challenge to continue their efforts.
However, it is time to open a second front. Pincer.
What’s been submitted for him in the election process is his own affidavit to Arizona and the Certifications of Nomination from the DNC and/or state dem parties. And until now it had to be presumed that those were lawful because there was no evidence that Obama was NOT eligible. For all we knew, Obama could have shown Nancy Pelosi a BC that said he was born in Honolulu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis and she could have certified him based on that. We just had no proof.
Now Onaka has confirmed that Obama has no legally-valid HI BC. Anybody who checked with Hawaii, as Bennett did, will be told that Hawaii cannot verify any birth facts for Obama. There is thus nobody who can certify that Obama is eligible. We can KNOW that any OCON presented is perjurious.
Bennett told a Freeper in an email that he thought Onaka had failed to verify a birth date because it was a typist’s mistake. But Bennett’s AG will hopefully set him straight on the legal presumption of regularity. Absent evidence to the contrary it is legally presumed that a routine procedure was handled in the prescribed way and complies with the laws and rules. Legally, Bennett HAS to presume that Onaka didn’t verify any of those birth facts because he CAN’T - and the only reason for that is if the HI record itself is non-valid.
IOW, what we’ve got now is Onaka saying that there is no valid record claiming EITHER Barack Hussein Obama OR Frank Marshall Davis (or anybody else) as the legally-true father of Barack Obama. Or any other birth fact. Obama’s eligibility simply cannot be known. And never WILL be able to be known until we have some evidence that is credible enough to be legally probative.
Obama should have taken care of this before it reached this point, because there is not enough time now for him to present his non-valid BC as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and have the probative value determined, given that the entire vital records history would have to be audited because of the passport breach, SS number problems, draft registration forgery, AND 3 other BC#’s (in addition to Obama’s) which have BC#’s that are on HDOH-issued BC copies that could not have been on the original BC’s in 1961. The HDOH is clearly playing musical chairs with the BC#’s, and the computer transaction logs and microfilms from multiple years would have to be audited in order to find out why those numbers were juggled and why, and what the original numbers were for all these people.
Furthermore, Obama has been using some kind of documentation his whole life long. If his HI BC is non-valid because it is late, then it has NEVER been valid and could never have been used for documentation purposes. IF that’s the case, then what BC HAS he been using all this time? That could well involve an audit of his college records or any other instances where he submitted a birth certificate for documentation purposes.
Onaka has opened up a huge can of worms here by simply stating the truth. Is Obama’s writing and speech full of lies about his past? Yes. But simply lying doesn’t make him ineligible. The only way we can know his eligibility is by knowing the true facts of his birth and going from there. And at this point there is no way to legally know his facts of birth because he’s got no legally-valid birth record in Hawaii.
IOW, we know that we can’t know, which means that nobody can certify him as eligible or place him on the ballot.
If somebody claims some birth facts to me and presents no legal documentation to back it up, I can’t sign an oath that I know them to be eligible to be President. It is perjury when you swear to something you don’t know.
There are no legally-established birth facts for Obama. That is what Onaka confirmed to Ken Bennett. Onaka did not verify the truth of ANY birth facts for Obama even though required by law to verify anything submitted to him for verification if he can certify that’s the way the event really happened. Onaka did verify that the claims that were submitted to him for verification all match the claims that are on the record they have. The only reason, then, for him to not be able to certify that those claims are actually how the birth happened is if the record they have is not legally valid - if the claims are not presumed by Hawaii to be true.
This isn’t speculation. This is a reading of the law. Not only does Klayman state this, but I spoke with 2 attorneys who confirmed the accuracy of this legal reasoning - including one of the NBC attorneys who has made his whole argument based on the assumption that Obama’s claims about himself were true. In addition, the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee tailored their request for verification so that it would never ask anything that couldn’t be verified even for a NON-VALID birth certificate. It was the MDEC verification request which made me first realize that even Obama-supporting lawyers recognize what Onaka actually verified to Ken Bennett.
An article which helps show that is at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf .
The reason this election is different is that we now have legal confirmation that any OCON signed for Obama is perjurious. He can’t get on the ballot in any state without a legally valid OCON. If a SOS knows that the OCON submitted to them is perjurious and they place somebody on the ballot anyway they are themselves committing election fraud.
The courts have failed us. Right now we have the situation where state officials, in every state, have to commit actual crimes in order to put Obama’s name on the ballot. My hope is that at least some of them will balk at that. And I intend to help them see they are wise if they balk at it. The question before us is whether we can convince our officials to obey the law. Because if they obey the law, Obama cannot be on any ballot in November.
The state AG’s are lawyers. They are bound by the rules of the ABA. They CANNOT counsel their SOS’s to put Obama’s name on the ballot without themselves suborning election fraud. Ken Bennett needs to talk to AZ AG Tom Horne and find out that this is the case. If even MDEC can see this, Tom Horne should be able to see it as well.
And if neither of them do, then maybe they need a visit from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the person responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes (such as election fraud and subornation of election fraud) in the county which seats the state capitol, where these guys work and where the crimes would thus be committed...
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.