Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Nancy Pelosi signed one certificate of nomination which was sent to 49 states and another - saying that Obama is Constitutionally eligible - to Hawaii. People have asked why she didn't send the eligibility-certifying one to all the states, but the more pressing question is, "Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama's eligibility?"
This is on my blog but I'll post the whole thing in the first response and the link to the blog post in the 2nd response so the links will be (hopefully) clickable.
As I understand it, Congress can’t have any legal bearing on Obama’s birth facts or the legal status of them. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV (Sec 1) says that each state’s acts, records, and judicial proceedings are to be honored. Hawaii birth certificates are governed by Hawaii law, and HRS 338-17 says that an amended and/or late BC has no legal value until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. Congress is legislative, not judicial or administrative. They can’t determine the probative value of an amended Hawaii BC. They simply have to abide by the process that Hawaii has set up for its records.
I disagree. There’s no ‘legal’ determination unless it’s prepared strictly for a legal purpose, such as a court of law. Now it may have been prepared to prevent legal problems, but it wasn’t prepared to be a legal determination.
The snag with that is that they can get a copy if the HDOH is satisfied that it is necessary to determine property or other rights.
The HDOH will never be satisfied. As long as they are the gate-keepers of the records nothing will ever be good enough.
You gave them the argument that both yourself and Obama himself could be in jeopardy because of the issue being unresolved. Didn’t budge them an inch.
I have sent a cease and desist letter to them because they keep addressing me by my last name even though I have only called myself “Nellie”. They get my last name from looking at my e-mail account information, and then they address me by that, which means that they converted the alias that I used (just “Nellie”) into a first and last name which they then disclose to people who ask to see my requests. They are forcing my real identity to be used even though I gave an alias.
In my cease and desist letter I noted that I have received threats and it would not be well for their office if somebody was able to make good on their threats because the HDOH illegally disclosed my real identity when I had chosen to use an alias.
Do you suppose they will give one extra moment’s thought to my safety? I told them to take out their references to my last name in all their responses to me. Any bets as to whether they will do it?
As long as an issue is left to their discretion - such as whether somebody could be endangered - they will take the easy road and do whatever serves their office the best.
I’ve become cynical because of what I’ve seen these people do. They can’t be trusted.
It can’t hurt to try, I suppose. But I think we already know what their response will be, based on how they’ve acted towards us.
Where can I find an article about the researcher who could not find Obama’s name in the 1960 - 1964 birth index in March? Are you thinking of this one?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/
No, what I’m talking about is described at http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/ya-cant-always-get-what-ya-want/
Hmmm, interesting conspiracy theory you’ve come up with, yet without using the words conspiracy theory. I would say that’s a much larger conspiracy in its own way than trying to cover for Obama.
Fukino didn’t say the alleged COLB is legitimate. You’re falling for circular logic. She’s also misleading people because she said requests were coming in despite Obama posting a copy of his alleged birth certificate on a website. The requests are because that copy has never been confirmed as legitimate. Do you see the problem now with her statement?? She doesn’t call the alleged COLB legal, legitimate, accurate, genuine, original, etc.
As head of the agency, Dr. Fukino ruled on my UIPA request. Okubo only replied when I emailed to ask for confirmation..
For what it’s worth, Leo Donofrio also told me that he felt, without a doubt, the ruling was a “statutory admission.” I spoke with a lawyer in my area at length about it, as well. He, too, agreed it was a statutory admission that the records exist.
I am just saying. I really have tried to seek out confirmation from the source as well as those who know law. So far, no one, not Fukino or Joesting—no one has corrected me if I am misunderstanding anything and I have invited them on more than one occasion to do so.
“I wont change butters mind either.”
If you are an attorney and dispute Donofrio and my local attorney on their legal interpretation, and you feel that Fukino and Joesting are purposely trying to mislead me because of your legal opinion, you could change my mind.
But, I have to go with the seven other confirmations, myself. For me, it makes sense. It’s the logical thing to do.
I do find it interesting that you've tried to pretend less disdain for those seeking the facts on this oval office creep. You're almost convincing.
Interesting, thanks for clearing that up although I was mostly being facetious.=)
I argued the health and safety provision of UIPA as a reason to disclose. That provision was superceded by HRS 3318-18.
So, I was told I didn’t have a tangible interest.
In Lakin’s case, he could have tangible interest as the individual making the request.
Regardless, I know the DOH won’t disclose, it’s getting it in front of a judge that’s important. The UIPA states that the judge will view the requested record behind closed doors.
If for example, the BC is suspect and has been amended or filed late with a non-institution birth, or foreign birth—the judge would really have to throw out all law to declare that Lakin has no tangible interest and that Obama’s BC is not necessary for the “determination of his personal rights.”
Anyway, Lakin requesting would be very different than me requesting. He wouldn’t have to even cite UIPA. He could just make a direct request and state his tangible interest.
I guess that would (or should) be a sure way to get the BC in front of a judge quickly.
The thing to do would be to get a lawyer to look at the idea and recommend it to Lakin’s counsel. I think that’s about the only way to get their attention.
Even if a judge saw that it was amended they could still deny that Lakin has any interest in it. That’s what the military judge has done - without even looking at any evidence.
Wow, I can tell I’m tired. When I’m tired everything looks impossible. I need to hit the hay and let my tank refill I think.
I will vouch for what you just said. You have given them every opportunity to say that you misunderstood - even asked them directly. Nobody would say that you misunderstood or change their response. It’s like the Millionaire question they knew was a millionaire question and you asked them about 4 different times, “Is that your final answer?”
At this point they’ve lost all ability to say that you misunderstood or that they didn’t realize what their answer meant.
Thank you! Now go rest up and have wonderful night!
Err...actually I just realized that Joesting actually gave me the “I can’t turn away from my workload to give you a yes or no answer.”
That there’s only one entry in the Birth Index for Obama is not speculation. It’s been confirmed by multiple researchers who have examined the 1960 - 1964 Birth Index in HDoH offices in Hawaii. And by direct responses from Okubo to Leo Donofrio.
Look it up. It’s not something I made up.
‘night, ladies. I will read up and catch tomorrow.
Tex
I just realized I read that Lakin followed the protocol of requesting that another party arrange for the discovery and testimony of Fukino, et al. And that the request to obtain discovery was denied.
I wonder if that is standard procedure or if someone is leading Lakin away from directly making the request himself.
I have always firmly suspected that the military are the biggest threat to uncovering the BC mystery. I never even noticed that little wiggle room in terms of determining who has tangible interest, because the statute isn’t that detailed.
There’s a reason that incompetent attorneys have made mass calls for interested enlisted to jump on their incompetent attorney bandwagons.
Lakin just really needs to write Fukino himself, explain that he’s been ordered to deploy AND now faces prison if he doesn’t obtain the Birth Certificate.
I mean really, how is that not ‘tangible interest?’ If you happen to know anyone serving or being deployed, please encourage them to just ask the DOH or let you ask in their name.
Good night BET!
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.