Posted on 05/19/2012 9:35:37 AM PDT by Elderberry
OBAMA-ARIZONA BALLOT
Hawaii to Ariz.: Prove need to verify Obama birth
PHOENIX (AP) - The attorney general's office in Hawaii is telling Arizona's secretary of state that if he wants confirmation of President Barack Obama's birth records, he'll have to prove he legitimately needs it.
Special Assistant Joshua Wisch said late Friday that Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett hasn't done that despite numerous email and phone exchanges between their offices.
Wisch says Hawaii state laws require Bennett to show legal authority that this office needs the records to update its official lists as part of its ordinary work.
Wisch says as soon as Bennett gives Hawaii adequate authority, the Aloha State will verify Obama's birth.
Bennett said in a radio interview this week that Obama's status on Arizona's ballot is in question unless Hawaii verifies his birthplace.
Hawaii officials have confirmed multiple times that Obama was born there.
Ssssssssssttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllll.
Too late for that to help anything, since the document in question was supposedly from 1980. (Also the stamp was from the post office rather than the SSA, if I’m understanding correctly).
But they HAVE made the microfilms that would show which registrations REALLY existed that day in 1980 available only to Eric Holder’s people...
“I just thought through what you said and what I said, and
it appears that I’m saying that scenario is not only plausible but it’s actually my theory.”
I think it’s the obfuscation of Hawaii’s responses to the adoption/late registration/amended inquiries that throws things off.
Because if Obama stole Virginia’s number that makes all the other issues moot. He NEVER had a Hawaiian certificate to begin with or he was registered a couple of years later and his birth certificate number would be way out of wack for an Aug. 1961 birth date.
I think the only question becomes when did he steal it. Was it earlier than 2005-2007.
“Long day.”
I bet. No need to respond to this post. I get what you are saying.
You have been doing yeomans work responding to everyone.
Yep, you know they will.
Thanks for the link. I’m looking at this statement:
“D. All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.”
It doesn’t say what facts are sufficient to show that the candidate will be qualified. I would presume that is left to the SOS then. And the HI statute allows a verification so that government officials can verify that the facts claimed on an application (such as the affidavit required here) are actually true. There is nothing here that excludes a SOS from making the decision as to whether the facts shown are sufficient or that excludes the SOS from verifying whether the claimed facts are true.
Unless there is another place which says more than this one, I would assume that it is the SOS’s job to determine whether the facts presented establish eligibility, and there is nothing to prevent the SOS from verifying that the stated facts are accurate. I also don’t see here anything that says that the name HAS to be printed on the ballot if the forms are properly filled out - just that they CAN’T be printed on the ballot if they haven’t filled out these minimum requirements.
Is there a section where it lists the duties of the SOS, or describes the exact procedures that have to be used by the SOS in determining whether the stated facts are sufficient to show that the candidate will be qualified?
(1) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person:(A) Before issuing a driver
(A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth.
(B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth. - - - (3) VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall implement the following procedures:
(A) Before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person, the State shall verify, with the issuing agency, the issuance, validity, and completeness of each document required to be presented by the person under paragraph (1) or (2).
“DOES THIS EXPIRE SEPT. 6, 2011?”
That’s the expiration date of the Notory Public’s Commission, who signed on the line above.
Here is a list of all the AZ laws on nominations:
http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=16
My eyes get tired reading that stuff.
I’m curious as to why this is suddenly significant. Its like something is going on behind the scenes. Who is doing all the searching on this issue suddenly?
Curioser and curioser.
________________________
You are curious, grasshopper?
Why now? Hmmmmm.
I would expect that the puppetmasters are done with Hussain and it is time for the next owned entity.
Why so much protesting? That in itself is a dead giveaway.
THERE IS NO REAL CERTIFICATE or there is something on it that he can't have shown. We are not stupid.
Was hoping that Texas, with its many electoral votes, would make it a requirement for Obama or any other candidate to have to produce a legitimate BC to be on the ballot.
Was hoping that Texas, with its many electoral votes, would make it a requirement for Obama or any other candidate to have to produce a legitimate BC to be on the ballot.
Got your ping late-
“It is the normal course of operations for the SOS’s office to receive an application for placement on the ballot”
WE all know that - Hawaii could give a crap. You and I both know that in the end, in a few days maybe, HI DOH will make nice and send Bennett a little vaguely worded email pointing to the old press releases where they supported obama’s claims to have a valid HI BC.
Bennett will graciously accept this email, and tell all the crazy birthers to go away. He has made it clear that he doesn’t want this in his lap, and that he is just “humoring” some TEA party people.
I hope HI tells him to stick it good. I hope he gets a loadful of what the “little people” have experienced in trying to simply have a straight and honest answer.
Remember that God also works through the hearts and minds of men.
Let us continue to pray: and in prayer to press forward.
someone going to finally succeed in making Obambi the PLAINTIFF instead of the DEFENDANT in a court case. Puts the burden of proof on Bambi.
whole DEM ticket in AZ goes down without a PREZ candidate.
“Onaka’s office is now stamping physical documents with a stamp having the TXE rather than THE, to try to support the online forgery. So it has actually crossed the line into using physical means from their office to support the forgeries.”
Where do we have evidence of this - when did it begin? This is the first I’ve heard. There must be multiple examples, yes?
Yeah. My eyes are wanting to bleed all of a sudden. lol.
Truly the people who write this stuff have a dizzying intellect (ala Wesley, referring to Vizzini in “Princess Bride”). lol. So my apologies if I sound dizzy or if I have inadvertently overlooked something. What I get after digging through this stuff is this:
The requirements to be placed on the presidential primary are very lenient and don’t allow the option of being disqualified. The rules can be seen at http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00242.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS
That’s why Bennett couldn’t really do anything about the primary ballot.
The general election is different. Chapter 3 of Article 16 describes how the general election procedures work. Letter D at http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00311.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS says:
“D. All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.”
Candidates for the general election can be challenged, as shown at http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00351.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS
“A. Any elector filing any court action challenging the nomination of a candidate as provided for in this chapter shall do so no later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth day, excluding Saturday, Sunday and other legal holidays, after the last day for filing nomination papers and petitions. The elector shall specify in the action the petition number, line number and basis for the challenge for each signature being challenged. Failure to specify this information shall result in the dismissal of the court action. Within ten days after the filing of the action, the superior court shall hear and render a decision on the matter. Such decision shall be appealable only to the supreme court, and notice of appeal shall be filed within five days after the decision of the superior court in the action. The supreme court shall hear and render a decision on the appeal promptly.
B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.”
So once the deadline for the candidate filing the affidavit (giving the facts showing they are qualified for the position) has come, any elector has 10 business days to file a challenge. Once that is filed the superior court has 10 days to render a decision. After the superior court’s decision the elector has 5 days to file an appeal to the AZ Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has to hear and decide the case “promptly”. So once the candidate has filed the affidavit stating the facts sufficient to show they are qualified for the position they seek, there is a maximum of 20 business days for the Superior Court to decide the issue.
Now consider the fact that it’s been 8 weeks since Ken Bennett first sent the money asking the HDOH for a simple verification of Obama’s birth facts, and he’s nowhere close to getting ANY kind of response to that.
Consider that even if they verify the facts, that verification contradicts prior disclosures by their office (which indicated a late and/or amended BC, which is not legally probative and the State of HI therefore CANNOT verify any facts claimed on that BC). At that point an audit would have to be conducted to find out which of their mutually-exclusive disclosures was accurate. That would involve looking at microfilms, computer transaction logs, and possibly the original paper record.
All that has to be done in a maximum of 20 business days. The HDOH has already stalled TWICE that amount of time just hemming and hawing over whether they can or can’t verify the facts of Obama’s birth for Bennett, who is clearly qualified to receive verification, based on HRS 338-18. There is no way that this challenge process could even put a dent in the processing needed to hash out Obama’s eligibility issues.
Bennett is absolutely doing the right thing. The HDOH’s own obfuscation is proving that before our very eyes. If Obama’s eligibility is truly going to be sorted out the process has to begin now, and the secretary of state is the only person who can force Obama and/or the HDOH to provide what is needed, on pain of not being allowed on the ballot at all if they refuse. There is nothing in the laws that disallows him from doing this, and just seeing what the HDOH has done for the past 8 weeks illustrates VERY clearly why he HAS to demand this just to maintain a clear conscience and the integrity of the system as well as his own oath to protect and defend the US Constitution.
Bennett is doing the right thing, and every Arizonan (as well as all the rest of us) need to let him know that we know that and that there are more who are with him than the very loud, annoying voices he’ll hear constantly that are against him. I’m sure his inbox is inundated, but if somebody wanted to start a petition of support or something, that might be helpful.
And, as I’ve said elsewhere, we need to keep holding him up in prayer, as well as Sheriff Joe, Mike Zullo, the AZ AG, Gov Brewer, and all the foot-soldiers who are doing the necessary work to see the rule of law prevail.
Mr. Rogers, you’ve fought for this country. I know you love this country. I hope and pray we can stand together to defend her with every power we have right now. =)
There it is. Thank you.
One more instance of hypocrisy from Obama. “The laws are for thee, not me.”
I’m still hopeful for Bennett. Reminds me a little bit of Gandalf and Elrond discussing Frodo. Elrond says, “Still, for him to have come this far, he shows remarkable resilience to the ring’s power...”
Bennett has a lot of forces against him - especially now that the media will be chewing him up and spitting him out. But he’s at least insisted that he will not put Obama on the ballot unless he gets an OFFICIAL VERIFICATION, which means that whoever gives that verification will be legally liable for fraud if/when the posse busts this thing open - or when Eric Holder is no longer AG to keep federal investigators from prosecuting the crimes committed.
He knows the shenanigans the HDOH has played with their carefully-worded evasions, while at the same time altering official records such as their birth index, their database, and the BC#’s for at least Stig Waidelich and Virginia Sunahara. There are some pretty ticked-off people who aren’t ready to let him forget that we’re sick of this.
And I DO hope the HDOH pisses him off with their crap. If the little peons like you or me can be labeled “vexatious requestors” and written off with a sneer, let him feel in his own gut what we’ve had to deal with this whole time. Let him sample the taste of the banana republic, and maybe that will strengthen his resolve. “There won’t be any Shire, Pippin...”
Amen to that.
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.