Posted on 10/14/2009 4:16:01 PM PDT by Spaulding
According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney general must be made public. Further, The Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:”
The State of Hawaii declared that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen and that this disclosure was approved by the Attorney General of the State. The State of Hawaii must now release any and all communications and documentation that led it to making this determination. Because Janice Okubo on July 29th revealed that the decision was approved by the State’s Attorney General, and the state made its Natural Born Citizen statement, the state is now required by law to disclose how it reached that conclusion. As Donofrio states, there can be no secret law. The State of Hawaii cannot simply make a statement with legal weight, and then when asked to provide how it reached that decision, simply say: ‘You just have to trust us on that’. They must release any and all information that led them to make their public declarations.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
It must suck to be Bummer.
Uh Oh. The Hawaii Communist Party is doing it’s best.
Upon first impression, this seems a much smarter avenue of attack than the one pursued by Orly Taitz.
Swweeeeettt!
Now lets see how they are going to twist out of this one.
Bummer is also starting to get it from his leftists ... sure must suck.
“smarter avenue of attack”
That is, until obamination files to have the evidence supressed in the guise of national security or some such malarky.
Unfortunately you will probably get to find out. This is too big a deal and the worms in Hawaii are not going to be cooperating.
They will probably come back with a statement that the Attorney General was asked to OK a decision they had made. He asked if they had researched it well. They said yes they had. He said OK. Here is a summary of the phone call. There are no other records.
I’m wondering how this will play out. I for one believe this is going to be covered up.
When it’s gone this FAR and this president has yet to reveal his own vault birth certificate it speaks volumes.
Spending a million dollars to cover up his “qualifications” does speak volumes to me. I wonder where the money is coming from? mmmmm
Dont hold your breath - our other commie Pres FDR took didnt care about laws either.
...I expect that ALL documentation pertaining to Obama’s life were cleansed before the Fem nominating convention last summer.
State Attorney General Bennett and in turn Janice Okubo are referencing the DNC certification of eligibility submitted to the Hawaiian Secretary Of State, bet on it.
I assume there are means of challenging the DNC itself. I recall no efforts in that particular direction.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Especially when factckeck.org scrubbed the fake COLB. They got out when it got hot. Got popcorn?
Yes it is. There are ZERO issues of Standing when it comes to UIPA laws. We ALL have standing.
yeah, i’ve also surmised it possible that the original paper files once lived in the hawaii records office but were destroyed at bummer’s behest in 2008 or sooner. so even if bummer happened to be “born in usa” and even if “we the people” are willing to overlook the “born a subject of a foreign country” question in light of more modern jurisprudence saying american citizenship is a geographical birthright that is forever unless renounced, bummer may have an unprovable provenance.
by the way i think you mean dem nominating convention rather than fem. if it was fem, we might well have president hillary.
This is easy to predict. They'll just ignore it. Donofrio will go to some court and they will dismiss the case with prejudice.
ML/NJ
this looks like it might be the wedge that opens the file...
will be ignored in the media
but it does not involve them
this is about Hawaii and its disclosure laws....laws that have been used to protect and deny disclosure of important facts...but now, like the Freedom of Information Act...will be used to open the file and show us the truth.
“by the way i think you mean dem nominating convention rather than fem”
whoops!...glad you caught that!
From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]
…Ms. Okubo,
I am currently a masters degree candidate at …
The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
Janice Okubo responded later that day:
From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…
Aloha Justin,
The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…
Nope, he will get the evidence and then file for Quo Warrento in Washington DC Circuit Court, and or SCOTUS, the only two courts in the nation that can actually take on the case which would result in the removal of an elected federal official from office. And he knows exactly how to do that.
We don’t need the Media.
What Leo needs is documentary evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii to a BRITISH father.
That is the relevant piece of information that will get Obama thrown out on a Quo Warrento case.
Quo Warrento is the mechanism by which an elected official is removed from office. It can only be done by the District Court in D.C. or by SCOTUS itself. But the case must be brought to them. Leo is building that case.
This will be brushed off with ease. Stonewall - destroy the evidence - fabricate any exculpatory notes needed - not respond - have a friendly judge dismiss the claim. Going nowhere.
Our only hope to defeat Obama and his agenda is at the ballot box - and only then by massive margins, because of the fraud that will be used to help him and his candidates.
It’s a rough road...
odder things have happened. we never expected to see acorn sent reeling, not by the systematic revelation of its bread and butter scandals, but by video proof that they were willing to delve into truly ghastly areas of the underworld.
Something Alan might be interested in.....
This is such a simple matter to resolve. Whatever could make Obama not want to settle this issue once and for all?
I appreciate your obviously knowlegable viewpoints.
Can you recommend any websites etc. that would provide
future info/updates?
Is Acorn really reeling? I see stories posted on FR about states still in bed with them...
Who is held to account, legally, in any way shape or form, at any point in the process and at any time, for certifying the eligibility of an ineligible Presidential candidate or nominee? We have the various Secretaries Of State. Tried unsuccessfully in a few instances. We have the political party itself. We have Congress.
Now, given the state of reality as far as legalities are concerned, where is the path of least resistance, that would lead to accountability, and from accountability to establishing validity of any means used to determine eligibility? Attempting to ramrod right into SCOTUS isn't getting anywhere thus far, and may never, barring some significant finding that changes the equation.
Federal elections are not strictly a creature of the Federal Government. State-level efforts have failed as well, but it doesn't sound as if every avenue has been pursued. Many of the several States, at the time the Constitution was ratified, determined birthright citizenship via jus soli, born of the soil. At what point did this change, and what bearing might this have upon just how their own, early citizenship requirements would be brought to bear upon questions of Presidential eligibility?
Remember, we're dealing with an unamended, original Constitutional requirement with no recourse other than original intent of the Founders, here.
And then, we have those of the several States, that determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis, born of citizen parents. How would Obama fare, were he held to such a standard, and is that in any way applicable? We know that he does not qualify under jus sanguinis due to a foreign father. Citizenship was determined by the several States at the time the Constitution was ratified, as I mentioned above. Is it reasonable that the citizenship standards of the States be brought to bear upon the matter? There's a door to be opened, if so.
The candidate, nominee and winner does not exist in a vacuum, and did not become candidate, nominee and winner on his own. His rise was dependent upon any number of individuals within the Democrat Party, starting with Howard Dean? Looks to be the case, to me. Then, there is Nancy Pelosi. Who else?
So when are they going to release the info? Should we not hold our breath?
And let me guess. The words “Constitutionally Eligible” were added oh say....just this year, eh what?
This really will be interesting.
Bennet’s ploy, to declare attorney-client privilege is countered by an obvious law. Is it all a delaying tactic? Have Obama’s backers anticipated the exposure of his ineligibility? I don't see how they couldn't have. But to find our why Donofrio, or someone, must force open the truth. I have my suspicions, which would lead to a supreme court decision. But for now, Kerchner/Apuzzo’s case seems blocked by a recalcitrant court, Taitz may never reach discovery, but Donofrio has forced a dialog with the court with the law requiring a prompt response. The free world will owe Donofrio and Miss Tickly if our republic survives.
i have been doing some research on this....
it seems that the Constitution is not clear on this...and the specific case has never been tested....
Article II section 1 states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;...
so what is a “natural born Citizen?” the constitution does not tell us....so now we enter the maze of court cases and decisions....and then reference back to British Common Law...
its a mess...and its never been tried.
it seems that whatever anyone says about this is all speculation....he had a British father...is he a dual-citizen? does that mean he is not a “natural born citizen?”
no one knows for sure...
it would help if it could be proved that he was born in Kenya....slam dunk...not qualified
but born in Hawaii to American mother not having resided for some number of years, not of certain age, with father of foreign nationality...not as easy to say...
i know many say its a disqualification, but that definition is not in the Constitution, it relies on a chain of logic that is subject to argument, and interpretation...which is going to be different depending on who is talking.
Kenya birth is the best and most certain path to disqualification...
arguments about “natural born citizen” and what it means is a lot more difficult and will finally land in SCOTUS....and sorry, but SCOTUS will not disqualify this “present”
someone please....show me i am wrong....show me...please
Yes that is happening, however their flank is now open (pun not intended, perish the thought). They have to prove their “saintly” bona fides from the ground up now, which will not be easy.
It has been legally decided. It was a SCOTUS case in the 1800’s. The case is titled Wong Kim Ark, and it has to be read thoroughly, you can’t just read the last few paragraphs. But it has been legally decided.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
“The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it.
Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.”
... which was the very law under which the Founders and every Patriot were held to be traitors, subject to arrest, or even seizure and involuntary conscription as over 6,000 U.S. citizens were, leading up to the War Of 1812, which was fought largely over British claims based upon "perpetual allegiance" under their common law.
It's not logical or even rational, to think that the Founders would acknowledge or accept such a feudal conception of liege, to a monarch, especially a British one. They pledged their fortunes, their sacred honor and their very lives to oppose it. To the extent that English common law continued in the new nation, it continued in some of the several States, and in the Bill Of Rights. Not elsewhere. Justice Horace Gray was a bloviating fool.
???
i cannot (today, tonight) read the whole case...but i have read your 2 paragraphs
i need a translation....not arguing with you...but cannot see the necessary foundation there
paragraph 1 is talking about children of American fathers born outside the US....and can we tax them
paragraph 2 says they have double citizenship....they have the citizenship of the father (US citizenship) but can acquire citizenship in another country where they are born...
????
so i am confused....are we supposed to flip this around and say that a child born of a foreign father on US soil may acquire US citizenship, but doesn’t have it at birth?
This seems inane.
Any baby born in the USA - even of two illegal immigrant parents - is a natural born citizen.
Any baby foreign born is also a natural born citizen of the USA unless neither parent is a US citizen - or - the father is not a US citizen but the mother is a US citizen - but - under the age of majority.
This is why US Embassies worldwide issue ‘Certificates of Natural Born US Citizen’s Born Abroad’ for such issue ...
One such certificate is framed upon the nursery wall of my God-child.
Its really something that you have to read the entire case. Wong doesn’t clearly define Natural Born Citizen, but it did define citizen rather clearly. I have just recently gotten a wealth of information regarding the defination of Natural Born in context, from direct quotes. I am still going over it... its a real treasure trove!
Natural Born Citizen clearly means a child born of two citizen parents born on the soil of the Nation. There is far more clear historical context than most all of us are aware of. I am working on that!
We will learn whether our legal system still applies...
Please pay attention; the rubber has met the road.
***Our legal system abdicated their responsibility when the SCOTUS didn’t take up any one of several cases before it at the time of the election. Since that time, Donofrio’s quotes have occupied my tagline space. The rubber went off the road about a year ago.
Good point. But the problem with shining a light on cockroaches is that they scatter...
Hit it from all angles. He’s hiding something. The truth will prevail in the end.
It’s a good argument. It was one thing for her to say she had “seen” the birth cert, that would be a statement based on her own personal knowledge.
To state that BO is a “natural born citizen” is a statement of a legal conclusion, which she is just not qualified to make under the color of her authority.
It generally does. Unfortunately, it's as though we're trying to stop a wrecking ball in motion.
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.