Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
I’m going to try this again: you just said, “Bennett...thought Onaka had failed to verify a birth date because it was a typist’s mistake.” Onaka DID verify the birth date. Read Onaka’s verification letter again, and you will see that he confirmed that the data on the attached COLB match those on the record on file in Hawaii.
It sounds like you have over-parsed and over-analyzed this thing until you’ve created a false reality for yourself.
Furthermore, you keep saying that Obama’s eligibility can never be known; however, we DO know that his father was never a US citizen. Obama’s claims of an African father have never changed. You do not require further proof of paternity to make a case for ineligibility based on NBC: Obama’s autobiography will suffice.
According to what law?? Where does it say legal documentation has to be presented to a party official or SOS?? We've already seen lawsuits where judges have said there are no such legal requirements.
According to what??
I don’t understand your comment.
At http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/293/293lect14.htm
it says:
ELEMENTS OF PERJURY
Perjury is the willful taking of a false oath in a judicial proceeding in regard to material matter at issue before the court. The essential elements are:
1. Willful taking of false oath — An “oath” or some other form of oath allowed at law, is an essential element. The reasons are historical. Throughout history, perjury was a minor misdemeanor because the supernatural consequences of lying under oath were considered more severe than whatever the law could do to a person.
2. Judicial proceeding — Historically, the crime of perjury could only be committed in open court, but states have expanded it to include affidavits, depositions, testimony, and statements in other proceedings.
3. Material matter at issue — The person must lie about a subject that has a significant outcome at trial. The significant outcome doesn’t have to be guilt or innocence, but it must be more than social significance, such as lying about your age or place of birth.
4. [General or constructive intent] — The person need not know positively that their statement is false. It is sufficient if proven they are merely uncertain about their statement, but went ahead anyway and made the statement. It’s a matter of determining if the person cared or did not care about telling the truth. Under common law, the requirement was that two (2) witnesses were needed to support the intent to commit perjury, but modern law allows a single witness plus circumstantial evidence, or circumstantial evidence alone.
++++++++
Citations were not given there, but from Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury :
The development of perjury law in the United States centers on United States v. Dunnigan, a seminal case that set out the parameters of perjury within United States law. The court uses the Dunnigan based legal standard to determine if an accused person, “[T]estifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.”[32] However, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution.[33]
++++
Citation 33, there, is for United States v. Fawley (1998).
Yes, the Rats have already done it this year - in spite of being warned they would be perjuring themselves.
The question is whether every state SOS and AG is willing to do so also.
If they are, this nation is sunk beyond what anything but a revolution can fix. I guess we’ll find out soon.
According to Onaka’s now-revealed fact that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid. It has no more legal weight than the color-drawing stick-person BC’s sometimes posted here. And that is legally the best that Obama has to offer.
Klayman’s letter explains it. The whole thing can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf . And there’s more explanation also, at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf
Just as a starting point for dialog here, is there anything from Klayman’s letter that you either don’t understand or disagree with?
found this on the Mass state Gov website:
OBJECTIONS
BEFORE THE
STATE BALLOT
LAW COMMISSION
PUBLISHED BY:
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ELECTIONS DIVISION
ONE ASHBURTION PLACE, ROOM 1705
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
617-727-2828 or 1-800-462-8683
05/04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..1
Overview of the State Ballot Law Commission ………………………………..1
Jurisdiction of the Commission ………………………………………………....2
Objections …………………………………………………………………………2
Contents of Objections …………………………………………………………..3
Who May File an Objection ……………………………………………………..3
Time for Filing Objections ……………………………………………………….3
Notice of Objections ……………………………………………………………..4
Timing of Notice ………………………………………………………………….5
Hearings on Objections …………………………………………………………5
Filings Due to the Commission Before the Hearing ………………………….6
Timing of Hearings ………………………………………………………….……6
The Hearing ……………………………………………………………………...7
Decisions ………………………………………………………………………...8
Judicial Review …………………………………………………………………..8
For More Information …………………………………………………………... 9
Introduction
The State Ballot Law Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) is a
quasi-judicial body created by the legislature pursuant to General Law chapter 55B.
The Commission hears objections to and renders decisions on issues relative to ballot
access for both candidates and ballot questions. Although the Commission’s activities
take place only seasonally, objections are filed, heard and decided by the Commission
within a brief time-frame.
Since objections and proceedings before the Commission often involve fairly
technical and complicated legal matters, it is strongly recommended that potential
objectors and respondents consult and/or retain a lawyer to represent them.
Overview of the State Ballot Law Commission
The Commission consists of five persons appointed by the governor. No more
than three members of the Commission can be members of the same political party.
The chairperson must be a retired justice of the supreme judicial court, appeals court,
superior court or district courts of the commonwealth. The Secretary of the
Commonwealth serves as the secretary of the Commission. G. L. c. 55B, § 1 (2000
ed.).
OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE STATE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION PAGE 1
Jurisdiction of the Commission
The Commission has the authority to investigate the legality, validity,
completeness and accuracy of all nomination papers and actions required by law to
give a candidate access to a state ballot or to place an initiative or referendum on a
state ballot.
Additionally, the Commission has jurisdiction over and renders decisions on any
matter referred to it pertaining to the: (1) statutory and constitutional qualifications of
any nominee for state, national or county office; (2) the certificates of nomination or
nomination papers filed in any presidential or state primary, state election, or special
state primary or election, (3) the withdrawal of nomination for any state, county or
federal office after the time to do so has expired or any ineffective withdrawal; (4) the
filing of nomination papers under a false name, or fictitious nominees; (5) and the
fraudulent or forged signing of statewide initiative or referendum petitions, and (6) any
other objection relating to the signatures on such petitions. G. L. c. 55B, § 4 (2000 ed.).
The Commission does not have jurisdiction of nominations or petitions which
are not in apparent conformity with law, have accordingly been invalidated by the
Secretary, and thus now are seeking access to the ballot. Further, the Commission
does not have jurisdiction of matters concerning the content of state ballots, including
ballot statements as provided in General Law chapter 53, section 45. The Commission
also does not have jurisdiction with respect to public policy questions, nor city or town
candidates and ballot questions. 950 C.M.R. § 59.02(1)(c).
Objections
An objection is a formal complaint alleging that the name of a candidate or a
ballot question should not be printed on an election ballot.
The most common objections filed are for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Certified signatures on nomination papers or petitions are not those of
eligible registered voters, or were forged or obtained by fraud.
2. The candidate lacks the legal qualifications for the office he/she seeks.
3. The candidate is a nonexistent or fictitious person.
All objections filed with the Commission must be filed with the Office of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth, Elections Division. The mailing address for the
Commission is:
State Ballot Law Commission
c/o Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
Elections Division
One Ashburton Place, Room 1705
Excellent! So what Freeper is in Massachussetts and is willing to file an objection based on Dr. Onaka’s verification to Ken Bennett?
I’ll be running around like a chicken with my head chopped off today but I know there are a lot of people a lot smarter than I am when it comes to this kind of stuff so I’ll happily let y’all work your magic. =)
We know that Obama’s father was never a US citizen from his mother’s divorce records.
We know that Obama’s father was the African because Obama said so. He can’t exactly dispute that, can he?
Further to my last comment: for Barack Obama to claim suddenly that his father was really someone else would be political suicide.
Onaka did not “verify” the names of either parent. HRS 338-14.3 requires (”shall furnish to any applicant”) verification of “any other information that the applicant provides to be verified”. BEnnett provided the names of both parents in his request for verification. Onaka did not verify these items as required by law, because he can not.
“Because Obama said so” is not legally probative.
“Onaka DID verify the birth date. Read Onaka’s verification letter again”
Onaka did not send a verification letter. Although his stamp was on the paperwork, there were also initials after that stamp. This means Onaka did not send the letter or even read it. Just clarifying the letter situation. :)
It doesn’t matter to me—in fact, I would think it hilarious and would make popcorn and sit back and watch.
I was answering you. For some reason, you do not think that Obama’s hundreds of representations that his father was Obama Sr. is sufficient proof to claim that he is NBC. I say it’s plenty of proof.
I think you have been drinking the same stuff as butterdezillion. The letter came on office letterhead and with the stamp, and consequently bears the weight and authority of Onaka’s office. Besides, Onaka himself has made other public statements confirming that he verified the info.
Legal proof, Dino.
It’s admissible. Obama has on numerous occasions stated that his father is Barack Obama.
What more do you want?
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.