It does fly normally. You are swearing under oath, under the penalty of perjury (just as if you were in court) that your statement is true.
However, considering the topic, it may not get far and he may be prosecuted for perjury, but it will be tough to prove.
>>So then it comes down to one person’s word against another person’s word.
Even if that is the case, all that would be required to disprove the accusation would be production of the accused of the birth-certificate.
>>And that is not going to fly in any courtroom in the nation.
Not quite. The statement sworn to is that these officials, presumably his superiors, told him there was no birth certificate... not the actuality of the [non-]existence of the birth certificate itself.
>It does fly normally. You are swearing under oath, under the penalty of perjury (just as if you were in court) that your statement is true.
>
>However, considering the topic, it may not get far and he may be prosecuted for perjury, but it will be tough to prove.
About the only way I see to prove him a perjurer would be the production of the birth certificate. If the certificate exists, and proves Obama ineligible, then there is a serious problem [politically speaking] for those who would charge him with perjury: its production would be a smoking-gun of conspiracy and [quite probably] treason. If the birth cert is American, yet from some other State than Hawaii, then the political consequences are also great: for the President would be proven a liar, along with many public officials & the media, and it is possible that fraud [and conspiracy] charges could then be brought. The Hawaii law even allows for the courts to demand documents, such as birth certificates, for evidence; therefore the ‘privacy laws’ excuse would be null and void were this to come to trial.
IOW, as far as I can tell this is a no-win battle (unless the birth certificate is genuine and valid and all as-claimed) if they choose to peruse it in the courts.