NBC covers the BC case but with a smokescreen

firstread.msnbc.msn.com ^

[frog in a pot]

“Very similiar to the ones I sent out months ago.”

OK, and in the interim there was an election and a real threat to our nation was chosen.

Respectfully, you are the boss mechanic because you run a good crew, don’t take excuses lightly and you get the job done.

This is basically the same thing. We all need to get our friends and relatives to contact their Republicans and raise hell. We need to work smart as well. Talk to every group you can reach.

[bossmechanic]

OK -
Let’s do this again. I’ll get on my end in the morning.
Happy Thanksgiving.

[BrandtMichaels]

You all seem to be missing the much larger point in the Donofrio case.

Obama went to school in Indonesia due to his adoption by his mothers 2nd husband. Any claim to being a Natural born citizen goes out the window - the most he could claim after this event is as a Naturalized citizen.

Clearly a fraud that Obama was completely aware he was perpetuating!

[henbane]

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was issued to folks whose births weren’t registered. They were not issued to people whose births were registered, and the program was terminated in 1972

Duly noted.

So presently only Certificates of Live Birth (COLB)are issued to all(both registered and unregistered births) residents of Hawaii?

And an image (photo/xerox)of the so-called Vault Copy which contains details of the birth(hospital,delivering MD etc)is released only to the principal?

Has anyone out there come up with a current example of an Hawaiian Vault Copy?

[frog in a pot]

“Happy Thanksgiving.”

Thank you! And the same to you and your loved ones.

And the same wish to everyone who has taken the time to read our posts!

[ReignOfError]

So presently only Certificates of Live Birth (COLB)are issued to all(both registered and unregistered births) residents of Hawaii?

I'm not sure what they do now. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was a special case, a program for folks whose births weren't registered in the days when Hawaii was a territory.

It was based on affidavits from folks present at the birth, or from hospital records, when there weren't any official contemporaneous records. It had a photo of the person as an adult, because they were initially issued long after birth. There would, presumably, be far fewer such certificates since statehood, when nearly all births are recorded when they happen.

Has anyone out there come up with a current example of an Hawaiian Vault Copy?

I haven't seen one. In my baby book, there's a hospital certificate -- one with elaborate engraving and inked footprints, produced by the hospital as a keepsake for the parents. It's not an official record, and presumably those would not be kept by the Vital Statistics office. The official record is often bland, bureaucratic and not at all suitable for framing.

[Uncle Chip]

I don't believe that Obama will ever turn over his original birth certificate to any court of law as it will serve only to incriminate him and his lawyers know that. Anything that comes from his hands will be evidence that can only go against him.

If he turns over to the court anything that does not conform to the Factcheck document, then he will be admitting that the Factcheck document is a forgery.

At this point he is trapped into standing by the Factcheck forgery which he dare not present in a court of law for fear of perjury.

His very obfuscation and stalling tactics on this demonstrate that he is essentially pleading the 5th Amendment as his pathway to the office of POTUS --

[XHogPilot]

In Obama's autobiography, he described in detail the contents of his Hawaii birth certificate. By my layman's interpretation, he has waived all further right to privacy of his BC.

The State of Hawaii’s argument in not releasing the BC is to protect the privacy of the individual. But Obama waived that right when he “released” his COLB. I suppose an argument could be made that he has never released the vault copy and since it contains different info, he has not waived his right in that respect.

[TheCipher]

Yeah, but a simpler thing to argue and there could be no rebuttle to it is that he says he released the “actual COLB”. He has a scan of the “actual” document online. So clearly there is no right to privacy as far as that document is concerned. So there is no legal reason for Hawaii to hold back the release of that document. Of course it would not show the essential details that would prove he was born here ( hospital and such ). But it would answer the question of if the one online is a forgery . If just one field doesn’t match ( Race - African comes to mind ) then it is an obvious forgery. That could be used in the other cases, showing he is coming into the case with “unclean hands” and because of this public fraud, the people do have standing because they were injured by it..

[TheCipher]

Yeah, but a simpler thing to argue and there could be no rebuttle to it is that he says he released the “actual COLB”. He has a scan of the “actual” document online. So clearly there is no right to privacy as far as that document is concerned. So there is no legal reason for Hawaii to hold back the release of that document. Of course it would not show the essential details that would prove he was born here ( hospital and such ). But it would answer the question of if the one online is a forgery . If just one field doesn’t match ( Race - African comes to mind ) then it is an obvious forgery. That could be used in the other cases, showing he is coming into the case with “unclean hands” and because of this public fraud, the people do have standing because they were injured by it..

[ReignOfError]

Hawaii state law specifies that the state does not release birth certificate information to anyone except the principal, his heir, his guardian, or his legal representative. You can make an ethical or common-sense case that Obama has no right to claim privacy, but his act doesn’t change the law.

[MamaTexan]

Sorry, I see no opposing opinion:

What makes your argument even stronger is the fact that early drafts of the Constitution provided, “We the States…” That language was expressly altered to emphasize that it was each and every citizen who was the power behind the Constitution.

“We the States…” means just that- the ENTITIES of the States.

'to emphasize that it was each and every citizen who was the power behind the Constitution' is true, but the power BEHIND the Constitution is not the same as a party to the compact.

-----

The Federalist No. 45
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 26, 1788
[James Madison]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

[frog in a pot]

Fortunately, I think we are all on the same page with regard to O’s eligibiltiy.

Your reference to Madison’s #45 is accurate. #45 was written in an attempt to overcome objections that the government contemplated in the constitution would impinge on state rights.

We are talking here about standing to sue. The truth of the matter is no governmental structure has authority except as provided by the people (at least in the U.S. and at least for the time being). The most efficient means of documenting the consent of the people to the Constitution was through the signatures of their state representatives.

It is clear two or more parties may contract for the benefit of third persons. It is also clear those third persons generally have standing to sue.

I believe, without having read the court decisions, that the standing issue for ordinary citizens had not ripened. At the moment, the time for contesting the state primary nominations has certainly expired (the Republicans slept through the moment). The time for objecting to O’s candidacy does not occur until after the electors vote and the entire Congress considers the vote on Jan 8, ’09. If our political representatives fail to take action on Jan 9, I predict the people will have standing. However, I am not a trial attorney.

Happy thanksgiving all!

[TheCipher]

That is what the courts are for. When interpreting a statute, the court not only considers the letter of the statute but the legislative intent of the statute as to the reason and spirit of the law.. Reading the statutory language in the context of the entire statute, the court can construe the intent of the statute consistent with its purpose. It can be interpreted under Section 338-18(b),that in limiting access to the registrant or close family members, that the intent of the law is to protect the individuals privacy. If the individual has waived that right by publishing the document, the protection no longer exists. Section 18(b)(9) gives the Court with unrestrained authority to order access to any person on such terms as the Court considers just and appropriate.

Also under Section 18 (d):

d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

So the statute clearly gives authority to the director to release any information on the registrant as she seems fit without authorization from the registrant. Now index data is not a birth certificate. But that is basically what the COLB is. Just a summary of data from the record. So in essence, a "certified" copy of the COLB is not needed in order to prove if the internet copy is a fake. Just release an index record with the info that is contained in the COLB. She can't hide behind protecting the registrants privacy because 1) The statute gives her authority to release it without his consent, and 2) He has supposedly already released that information.

Also someone can request verification of certain parts of the record ( birth father for example ) under Section g:

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

I think the place of birth of a President can be considered a vital event.