Posted on 09/22/2013 1:06:51 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.
This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Well we can agree on one thing at least: yes, there are dime-a-dozen incompetent (or evil) lawyers.
An excerpt from the Appellants’ brief in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
“For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage.
Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/AppellantsBrief.pdf
The Government (Appellant) Brief: US v Wong Kim Ark (page 18 of 20 of the pdf) Page 34 of the original.
Fair enough. I have a fairly thick skin about such things. My preference being to focus on substance and not about personalities and style, I'm content to let this one slide and get back to the questions at hand.
On that point, one of the items Bennett specifically requested verification was "Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital." That was requested along with 9 other items in Bennett's letter. Onaka expressly verified those items. So this leads me to two sets of questions.
1) If, as you assert, the Hawaii statutes and regs differentiate between supposed "legally valid" and "legally invalid" birth records, why don't the statutes then direct that when a verification is being requested of information contained on "legally invalid" birth record the response contain some notation that the underlying record is considered (as your argument goes) unreliable? Wouldn't the assumption otherwise be on the requester's part that when a verification is received the verification can be taken as confirming valid information? Presumably (under your view that the records are an admixture of "valid" and "invalid" ones, this could come up more than just with Obama's case. But the absence of any indication in Hawaiian law that there is this dichotomy in probative value among verification requests indirectly confirms your underlying assumption is bogus.
2) If (in your view) the reason Onaka didn't expressly verify things like "Oahu" and the other 5 things you mention from the application is because the underlying record was "invalid," then how on earth is it that Onaka can then expressly verify "Kapiolani M&G Hosp." and those other 9 items? Isn't the better view here that Onaka was able to verify those 10 items because he accepted that the record was valid? As I've shown, the 6 items on the application form were listed along with a bunch of items pertaining to Bennett himself, so it can be easily explained why Onaka would opt to effectively verify these via confirmation of the accuracy of the WH LFBC. But how could he directly verify all these other items if (as you claim) he didn't have a "valid" record upon which to respond?
I will await to see if you will cross this road.
He verified that those items were “from the birth record”, just like Bennett specifically asked him to do. That’s not the same thing as verifying that those are on a VALID record. Onaka nowhere said anything about the record being valid or that he was verifying that the facts were true.
And when asked to verify that the White House image is genuine (a true and accurate representation), he would not. When later asked to verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information contained in the HDOH record he would not. In effect, he verified in two different ways (once by listing a few of the items claimed on the record, and once by saying that the information “matched”) that the claims on the White House image are also on what they have. But he would not say that the White House image is identical or a true and accurate representation of the HDOH record, and he would not say that any of those claims are true.
He verified that those items were “from the birth record”, just like Bennett specifically asked him to do.
Right. Because that's what a custodian of records does: he verifies factual claims according to what is disclosed on the vital records. And Bennett was satisfied that Onaka had done what Bennett had requested. Or am I missing the part where Bennett says "Gee, I never asked Onaka to tell me if he has a valid birth record on file, but I guess I should just assume that when Onaka goes through the formality of verifying these 10 items I asked that he's doing so from an invalid record."
That’s not the same thing as verifying that those are on a VALID record.
Since vital records offices don't purport to keep invalid records around that they use to verify claims, it IS the same. It's just not possible for anyone who is not obsessively driven to deny the obvious to read “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event” and conclude Onaka is saying "I'm going through the motions of verifying these 10 items, but I'm not saying it's a valid record." He's obviously "verifying facts" from a record he obviously treats as genuine.
Onaka nowhere said anything about the record being valid or that he was verifying that the facts were true.
Again, the statute speaks about the custodian verifying "the existence of a certificate" but does not say anything about the custodian having to "declare the record is valid." If the record isn't valid, it wouldn't be in the files any longer. This is obvious to anyone but you.
The HDOH keeps all records that are filed. It is not their job to throw stuff away. That is why the statues specifically state that records are prima facie UNLESS they are late and/or altered. They have to distinguish between prima facie and non-prima facie records because they DO keep records that are late and altered. So their having a BC on file says nothing about the validity of the record. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. And I say that because I’ve read the statutes.
And in fact, I’ve proven that the HDOH altered their 1960-64 birth index so that it includes names from records that are not legally valid.
You can look on the request form that Bennett filled out, and at the bottom of the form is a “For Office Use Only” portion where it lists the different indices that the office workers are supposed to check off to show they’ve looked everywhere for the record. Why would they have a “Delayed Birth Certificate” (DBC) index if they would not issue a certified copy (or a verification of the existence of) a delayed BC, which is by statute NOT prima facie? Why would they have an “Incomplete” index? Etc.
Hawaii is one of the states that uses EVVE, for electronic verification of vital records. The format required by the EVVE system has a “void flag” so that records which are not valid can be voided for a while and/or switched back, according to the status of the record. Why have the ability to void records if you throw away ones that either start out or later become non-valid? The system is set up based on the presumption that DOH offices are REPOSITORIES of records; they store what is given, even if what is given is a load of crap. What they do is distinguish between the records that have a credible history/documentation and those that are questionable to the point that they are legally non-credible.
And the HDOH Administrative Rules (”Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b) have a big long section distinguishing between this and that kind of amendment and which of those result in the BC having to be stamped with LATE or ALTERED. That is important because the statutes say that BC’s stamped as LATE and ALTERED are not prima facie and the HDOH cannot vouch for the truth of the claims on them. The HDOH cannot verify the truth of those claims. They HAVE to verify the existence of the record but they cannot verify that any of the claims are true.
And if somebody made a forgery that had the LATE and/or ALTERED stamps deleted, they would have to say that the claims on that forged BC “match” the claims on the actual HDOH record but they could not say that it was a “true and accurate representation” because it lacks the LATE and/or ALTERED stamps.
So I call to witness the application form, the statutes, the Administrative Rules, the EVVE’s “void flag”, and the alteration of the 1960-64 birth index as proof that they do, indeed, keep records that are non-valid.
I’ll also add this. The Administrative Rules also state which records are complete enough to allow a certified SHORT-FORM copy to be issued. The HDOH cannot print out a certified short-form for a BC that doesn’t have all the required information because it is not complete and yet there would be no indication on a COLB that items critical to the credibility of the record were lacking.
This became a problem for a couple who refused to answer the “parents’ race” portion because they believed it was racist/discriminatory/nobody’s business. The HDOH would not print out a COLB for the child because required information was missing and a COLB would have no red flags on it because the record was neither late nor altered.
The HDOH did NOT throw away that BC because it was incomplete. And in fact, the Administrative Rules specifically make provisions and rules regarding the incomplete records that the HDOH stores.
When you look at the retention dispositions for the HDOH you see that documentary files - which are only required for BC’s that are late or altered - are required to be retained permanently in a file separate from the BC itself.
All this consistently shows that the HDOH keeps records that are non-valid. The mere existence of a record says nothing about the legal status/validity of the record. And, as the HDOH showed by including names from non-valid records on their 1960-64 birth index, the inclusion of a name on a birth index doesn’t say anything about the validity of the record either.
And yet HRS 338-14.3 says that the existence of a vital record has to be verified. It doesn’t distinguish that only VALID records have to be verified as existing, and it wouldn’t make sense for them to refuse to verify the existence of non-valid records either, because why keep them if the public has no way of even knowing they exist? The public has to be able to know they exist so they can amend them and/or present them as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body, as HRS 338-17 says.
Now I feel ashamed. The things you’ve said make sense if you don’t realize that they keep non-valid records as well as valid ones. I’m glad we’re getting to the bottom of this misunderstanding and I’m truly sorry for the frustration and accusations I’ve hurled because I didn’t realize the core of the misunderstanding.
This is something I probably need to make more clear to everyone because not everyone has read all the records that I’ve been able to read.
I'm talking about Federal law. Your citation from Hawaii doesn't mention the listing of the place of birth. Why are you trying mislead here??
Unfortunately, you're not looking at ALL of what Madison said. In the very next sentence he talks about the parental birthright of the person in question. He didn't say place of birth was the ONLY criterion, only that it applied in the U.S. and that it is the most CERTAIN criterion. He obviously respected the rule of blood. Do you??
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
This excerpt is a reaction to the lower court citing the Look Tin Sing case, which erroneously stated a person born in the country to noncitizen parents would be a natural-born citizen. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision supported that conclusion.
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
They also note that there was NOTHING in Wong Kim Ark to support this conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...
IOW, what you cited was actually just dicta. The actually ruling only said:
To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Ankeny court avoided declaring ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen on the basis of their "guidance" from Wong Kim Ark. All they said was that there was a conflict in the plaintiffs definition of NBC that they didn't have to accepts as true. The meat of the ruling was that the governor couldn't be required to vet presidential candidates.
Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
It's MORE well-settled by 27 Supreme Court justices that natural-born citizens are defined as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Note how Judge Gibney cites NOTHING to support his dicta.
“For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Wow, this is a whopper. Ankeny didn't say anything about Obama becoming a citizen at birth nor did it says that Obama was a natural-born citizen. In fact, the Ankeny decision barely discussed Obama at all. And it's intereesting how this administrative judge says he "considered" that Obama was born in the United States, even though Obama never provided any evidence of this. At least this judge was smart enough not to cite Wong Kim Ark directly. It just gives us four decisions with vastly different bases for their rulings.
Bennett didn't bother to read the letter before making a decision. He didn't care one whit about whether Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. went through the formality of verifying 10 items and not verifying the items that were on the DOH's own standard request form. And you're missing an important part of the law on self-authentication in the rules of evidence. The custodian of certified records is supposed to verify that copies of such records are CORRECT copies. It's not just a matter of verifying a few "factual claims" contained in a record. That's not the custodian's only responsibility.
Since vital records offices don't purport to keep invalid records around that they use to verify claims, it IS the same.
This is more nonsense because such offices would keep all records on file whether they are valid or not. They only CERTIFY the ones that are valid. The other records remain invalid until required documentation or evidence is presented.
Again, the statute speaks about the custodian verifying "the existence of a certificate" but does not say anything about the custodian having to "declare the record is valid."
That part is covered under the Federal Rules of evidence and in the part of the Hawaii statute that says the letter of verification would verify any facts relating to the vital event AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT. That would include verifying whether the copy of the record is a TRUE copy.
The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has been “stare decisis” for the last 115 years.
The ruling of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v. Daniels was appealed up to the Indiana Supreme Court but was denied a hearing.
The ruling in Tisdale v. Obama was not appealed.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp used the ruling in Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v. Obama to approve Obama for the 2012 Georgia ballot. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State in Fulton County Superior Court. The court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State. The plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court’s ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court refused to overturn the Superior Court’s ruling. The plaintiffs then submitted Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS denied the petitions, refusing to hear the appeals.
Palin/Cruz 2016
It’s Friday. Any decision?
The Alabama Supreme Court decisions released today did not include
Mc Innish v. Chapman.
Oh... {resumes playing Jeopardy’s time is counting down music}
Florida Supreme Court denied the Voeltz v. Obama appeal. Klayman is the lawyer in both Florida and Alabama
http://www.birtherreport.com/2013/09/breaking-florida-supreme-court-denied.html
The same law that was used to create a standard Federal birth certificate in 1955. The “en route” terminology is used in the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for coding and geographic particulars.
The holding in Wonk Kim Ark did NOT declare him to be a natural-born citizen. The Indiana Appeals Court admitted this which I've already quoted. Your other comments here don't address the problems I brought up with the inconsistent bases for each ruling you quoted. You're resorting to an appeal of circular logic about whether the cases were appealed or not. That won't make the rulings any less consistent.
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.