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 ...
How can any court make a ruling as to law without having any legally-determined birth facts for Obama? Onaka’s disclosure puts egg all over the faces of any judge who has “ruled” anything about Obama’s eligibility. There are no legally-determined birth facts so we have no idea where, when, or to whom this guy was born. All of which are critical to eligibility. Onaka’s disclosure shows that the burden of proof is on Obama, not on those who challenge the Hawaii birth claims. That turns all the judicial opining upside-down and shows the judges to be gullible morons.
Article Four, Section 1 of the Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Hawaii Department of Health’s Loretta Fuddy and Alvin Onaka are the sole determiners of Obama’s birthplace unless and until someone presents probative evidence to the contrary. Over six years, no one has presented probative evidence to the contrary.
Has any court ever ruled that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Has any law enforcement investigation concluding in a criminal complaint being filed ever determined that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Has a grand jury investigation ever concluded that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Has Congress ever held a hearing which determined that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Has any state’s chief election officer or state legislative body ever ruled that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Has any state’s elections commission ever ruled that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Has any state’s Governor or Attorney General ever stated that the Obama birth record is invalid? No.
Obama’s Selective Service card forwarded to USPIS Mail Fraud Division
“Since ratification of the U.S. Constitution it has been held that anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their citizenship.”
Not technically true. It wasn’t until the expatriation act of 1868 that American citizens were allowed to renounce their citizenship without permission from the government.
Read Justice Iredell’s and Justice Paterson’s opinions in Talbot v. Jansen 3 U.S. 133 (1795).
Justice Paterson specifically says, “A statute of the United States relative to expatriation is much wanted, especially as the common law of England is, by the constitution of some of the states, expressly recognized and adopted. Besides, ascertaining by positive law the manner in which expatriation may be effected would obviate doubts, render the subject notorious and easy of apprehension, and furnish the rule of civil conduct on a very interesting point.”
There was at least one earlier attempt by Congress (1797) to pass an expatriation act.
That may be Kansas law but that’s not what Hawaii Public Health regulations state.
Chapter 8 Section 5 only requires that the certificate must be filed in the registration district where the child is first removed from the conveyance not that it is listed as the place of birth.
“When a birth, fetal death (stillborn), or death occurs in a moving conveyance, a birth, fetal death or death certificate as the case may be, shall be filed in the district which the child or remains were first removed from the conveyance”
Compare that to Kansas law:
“If a birth occurs on a moving conveyance, a birth certificate shall indicate as the place of birth the location where the child was first removed from the conveyance.”
See the difference in language.
Section 338-18 determines who can get a Letter of Verification:
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (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:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency that, for a legitimate government purpose, maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s activities. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, upon request from a governmental agency of the State of Hawaii or its political subdivisions, the department may further disclose to that governmental agency the date of the vital event that has been verified;
(3) A governmental agency, or private, social, or educational agency or organization that seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record that was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental agency, or private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.
SoS Bennett first had to convince the DOH that he met item (2) as he was preparing a list of candidates as part of his normal duties.
The MDEC used (4) to get a copy for the Federal Court in Mississippi.
BTW, under (4) Taitz could have gotten a LOV for the Georgia case, Apuzzo could have gotten one for the New Jersey case and Klayman could have gotten one for both the Florida cases and the Alabama case. Of course if they did submit a LOV it would have killed their cases dead but still they could have gotten one under the Hawaiian law.
It shouldn’t be that difficult to convince a judge to issue a court order for release of State Department files related to this purported 1983 naturalization.
Also a congressional investigation or law enforcement purposes are specific exceptions to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
The courts have ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. No court has ever ruled that he is a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen and no court has ever ruled that he is not a natural born citizen in 311 court rulings, state and federal appellate and U.S. Supreme Court adjudications.
For example:
Purpura & Moran v. Obama:
New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin ruled that “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
Yep! I guess that I don’t need to “guess” any more as to who can get a Letter of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copy.
Thanks for posting that.
The State Department does not immigration files. Immigration files are in the custody of DHS. There has been only one case where evidence could have been subpoenaed. Obama ignored all requests for documents in the Georgia Ballot Challenge. Zero prosecutors, Federal or State, have filed criminal charges against Obama for falsely stating he is eligible to be POTUS. And zero prosecutors have demanded to see Obama’s immigration file.
In U.S. v. Craig, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held no one has right to a determination as to natural born citizenship status. SCOTUS has opined in some cases a particular individual with particular circumstances is a natural born citizen, but they did not have a right to demand a determination of their status. SCOTUS has only commented on natural born citizenship status in dicta.
SCOTUS has opined naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible for POTUS. Consequently, the only way to determine who is eligible for POTUS is to eliminate those who are not eligible. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. Non-citizens are not eligible. People under 35 years of age are not eligible. And People who have not been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years are not eligible.
“A statute of the United States relative to expatriation is much wanted, especially as the common law of England is, by the constitution of some of the states, expressly recognized and adopted.”
That which is not in the Constitution is left to the states. All states had expatriation regulations. Some states adopted expatriation acts into their State’s Constitution. A means for all citizens to expatriate themselves after moving out is a very basic founding principle of the U.S. Since there was a time when expatriation legislation did not exists, a U.S. Citizen could only expatriate themselves by renouncing their state citizenship. Without state citizenship, you are not a U.S. Citizen.
George Washington’s mother, Mary, was not a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia or a U.S. Citizen when Washington was sworn in as the first President. Mary Washington held title to many acres of land in Virginia and never became a citizen of the state or the United States.
I do. Though "non-prima facie evidence" isn't exactly a term used in evidence rules or manuals.
When you look at the HI statutes, they are required to keep birth records that are prima facie and records that are NOT prima facie. Specifically, BC’s that are late and/or have major administrative amendments (as defined in great detail in the Administrative Rules) are NOT prima facie.
OK. But given that nothing that Dr. Onaka states (nor anything stated anywhere else by anybody at any time) indicates that what we're concerned with here is a late or amended certificate, you're devoting a lot of typing to a non-point.
The difference is a critical one because if the record is prima facie the claims on it are legally presumed true.
That depends on whose evidence rules are applicable. Each tribunal applies its own applicable rules of evidence and accords probative value (or not) to a particular matter of evidence as it sees fit. So, for example, a court in Georgia will ascribe weight to vital records evidence according to its rules. In federal court, the Federal Rules of Evidence govern. Or, in like vein, a Secretary of State will accord to such the import he/she sees fit to discharge the duties of the office.
For that record to have ANY evidentiary value for legal purposes those claims themselves have to be investigated and proven using other sources, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
But here we're talking about a verification sent to the Secretary of State of Arizona (or Kansas). That you think the F.R.E. apply (why else would you interject them into this discussion?) is a testament to how poorly you understand law and evidence.
When Onaka gets an application for a request for a letter of verification, HRS 338-14.3 says he must verify the existence of a record AND anything else (about the vital event) that is submitted for verification, with the stipulation that he can only verify what can be certified as true - which for evidentiary purposes means whatever is legally presumed to be true.
Right. And Onaka confirmed per the vital records the Hawaiian birth of Obama:
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
So, as you say, Onaka could only verify what can be certified as true. Since Onaka verified as true Obama's Hawaiian birth, then we know the birth record as to that birth fact can be certified as true.
And this comports with what has already been noted about the evidentiary effect Haw. Rev. Stat. §338-14.3(b) provides:
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
We're making good progress here already.
#1 covers whether they’ve got a BC that claims what is submitted on the application.
I'd phrase it a bit differently to say that they can verify the existence of a certificate if the information supplied on the application is sufficient to identify a unique certificate for a person with that name and other details as supplied. Now, with a name like "Barack Obama" uniqueness obviously isn't a concern. But one can suppose a request for the Hawaiian parallel to the "John Smith" type name where there are potentially several and therefore the island, hospital, etc. information is important to identify the unique and correct certificate.
Those requests could be for what is true, or could be for what is claimed on a record.
There is nothing in the statutes or regs which purports to say the Director making the verification is to distinguish between what is "true" versus "what is claimed on the record." In my first post to you I corrected you on this very point, noting that a records custodian is not privy to actual facts of the event by virtue of being a firsthand witness. He/she only can testify as to what is contained in the records. So all verification requests are NECESSARILY limited to "what is claimed on the record."
In Bennett’s case, he said, “In addition to the items on the attached application, please verify FROM THE BIRTH RECORD....” He is asking for each item from the application form to be verified specifically, and he is asking for other items to be verified “from the birth record”. Onaka could take that 2 ways.
Incorrect. Since Onaka knows he (Onaka) is not a firsthand witness to the actual event (and that Bennett understands this as well), Onaka can only read the request to mean he's being asked to verify whether the items submitted on the application and letter can be verifed from the vital records.
If he interprets it as a request for the true facts on the application . . .
But he can't interpret it that way as Onaka can only testify as to the state of the records; he can't testify as to the "truth" of facts for which he has no firsthand knowledge. (Hopefully, my repeating this point will cause it to sink in).
then he would have to specifically verify every item that was submitted from the application form
And since the application form contained such items as Ken Bennett's name, Bennett's address, Bennett's phone number, etc., in addition to the details supplied to identify the existence of the birth record, Onaka couldn't properly take Bennett's request to "verifiy all items" on the application at face value. Or, one might say, Bennett's request was prima facie improper in form.
He doesn’t do that.
But he does. Onaka just doesn't do it in the form that you demand that he do it. All those items on the application (i.e., those that pertain to Obama, not the ones that pertain to Bennett), such as Oahu and the 8/4/61 date, are contained on the WH LFBC copy Bennett provided. As to those birth facts, Onaka verified they match the original birth record on file.
Look at it again:
““[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
He is only verifying the existence of the record claiming a Honolulu birth. He does not verify that Obama WAS born in Honolulu.
Again (yawn) Onaka can ONLY testify as to what the birth records indicate (i.e., what information is disclosed on the record). He can't certify the fact itself directly. That certification is supplied by the statute:
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
Bennett knew Onaka didn’t verify the birth date; it’s not listed on there anywhere.
It's listed on the WH LFBC copy which Bennett provided. And Onaka verfied the birth date (as well as every other fact on the copy) matched what is stated on the original birth record on file. (How do you keep missing this point?)
[T]he statute gives only one lawful reason for all 6 of the requested items . . .
But there were more than 6 items of information on the application. Right?
Nowhere did Onaka verify how the birth actually happened.
Onaka no doubt figured that Bennett understands the basic biological process.
However, he hits a snag when Bennett asks him to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” . . . True and accurate representation” means that the image accurately reflects what is in the actual record. He doesn’t verify that.
I already addressed this point when you made it earlier. Clearly, you don't bother reading replies.
Here, again (with slight edit):
Since the White House image came from a copy printed onto security paper, and since the originals aren't on security paper, obviously Onaka couldn't give a verification as to "accurate representation." The images necessarily are different.
I note that the eligibility issue is the only issue you have posted on here at Free Republic. You’re obviously interested in this.
My online discussions have in the past been more in the area of church history and theology, which relate well with my general interests in history and law. The NBC issue, invoking as it does several centuries of Anglo-American history, case law, and even the (misdirected) application of "natural law," is more my interest. That topic has subsided here. So I'm delving into this by inertia.
He doesn’t have to be an eyewitness if he has a prima facie record which makes the claims. Otherwise, nobody could ever certify anything.
Or the better view is that Onaka understands that as a witness he is limtied to verifying what the birth record indicates, and the certification of the "truth" of those events is, by statute, not a function of his testimony but rather a conclusion imposed by law:
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
The custodian reviews the items submitted by the requester and compares to see if what is indicated on the birth record matches those items. If so, the custodian verfies those items. Then the statute gives the legal effect of that verification and certifies the matters verfied as "true."
Got it down yet?
As it stands now, what we have is legally considered a rumor -
What you assert, and what §338-14.3(b) state are two very different things. The statute takes precedence here over your opinion.
But I think I know enough to recognize that we have to alternative processes here. One pertains to issuance of a certified copy of a certificate. The other to verification in lieu of a certified copy. The statute you hang your argument on as to "prima facie" (338-17) pertains to the probative value of a certificate (under the specified circumstances). But with Bennett we're dealing with the verification process, and that comes with its own, separate statute as to probative value, namely 338-14.3(b). So what I know about "prima facie" is enough to tell me this: given two statutes that apply to different processes, always choose the one that supplies the rule applicable to the situation presented in the case before you!
And you apparently still haven’t read HRS 338-14.3 which clearly states that when submitted facts are verified it is certification that the event happened the way that the requestor stated.
Exactly my point. Bennett submitted a copy of a certificate and application that refers to Pres. Obama's birth having been in the State of Hawaii. Onaka verified that the vital records confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii. So that is certification that the event happened as per Bennett's request.
The statute REQUIRES the HDOH to do what you say can never be done: state the way that the event really happened.
Nonsense. Here's the statute:
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
Again. The requester subits a fact (or set of facts) to be verified. The Custodian checks the requested fact as they pertain to the certificate and verifies it against the vital record. If the fact is so verified, then the statute (subpart b) supplies the legal effect and confirmation that the event thus took place as stated by the applicant. (The legal effect in Hawaii, that is. Outside of Hawaii each tribunal supplies its own evidence rule, as noted in my prior post).
If you understood what prima facie means, you would know that the legal status of the record gives ANYBODY the legal authority to presume that the claims on it are true.
And here you're essentially recognizing a point I made to you earlier:
As to that key birth fact Dr. Onaka verifies point-blank."
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Now to most any reader that pretty much affirms in about as simple and direct fashion possible that per the HI vital records BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Assuming that Beth Chapman knew of this verification by Hawaii of the key birth fact, wouldn't that suffice for her to conclude Obama was eligible?
On one hand you would have us able to say that Obama really was born in Hawaii because we’ve seen the manipulated White House image . . .
I'd say, rather, that for most persons who understand that vital records information is invariably determined by a certification/verification by the vital records custodian, Hawaii has in two ways substantiated the WH copy 1) by linking the WH image on the Hawaii website and 2) through Onaka's verifications to several state secretaries. You have your protestations and denials; though I think nearly anyone but you they are tortuous and incomprehensible.
Blah blah blah. I’m not going to waste my time reading the last half of what you posted because the first half is so full of BS it’s more than I can bear.
The statute says that verification is certification that the event really happened the way the requester’s submitted facts said. That is clearly addressing the part of the verification where it is saying that SUBMITTED FACTS are verified, and not the part about the existence of a record being verified.
When facts are verified it means that the registrar is certifying that the facts are sufficiently proven according to legal standards so that he/she can certify their truth without being in danger of perjuring him/herself. That’s why the prima facie label is so critical, and why all birth records at the HDOH are prima facie, UNLESS they are late and/or altered.
If the record is prima facie the registrar is REQUIRED to verify the truth of any the fact on that record when it is submitted for verification. If the record is not prima facie the registrar CANNOT verify those facts as true. There’s no wiggle room when the requestor is asking for the facts of birth to be verified, as is the case on the verification application form.
This is also why HRS 338-14.3 says the existence of a record AND anything else submitted for verification must be verified, instead of just saying that the existence of a record must be verified. A record can exist which is not prima facie. In that event they need to verify the existence of the record but cannot verify the facts of the event. Which is exactly what Onaka did for Obama.
But if you can’t even figure out that certifying “the way the event really happened” means certifying something as the truth, then you’re beyond hopeless and I would be a fool to even keep talking with you. Good-bye.
You’ve shown you’re not worth the time. Sorry. I’m not reading anything from you; I’ve got much better things to do. Like banging my head against a wall.
What does your obamaroid Internet work pay these days?
Given the number of times I've had to repeat things I've said that you totally ignored, it doesn't seem like you read anything up till now anyway.
I would be a fool to even keep talking with you.
You were a fool to act like you're some evidence expert when the person you're talking to is an attorney licensed in 3 states. And you brought the haughty 'tude to boot.
Yeah, it was time for you to pack it and go. But you were worth some laughs. For that I thank you.
Insofar as your quest to convince anyone of significance that Onaka's verification of Obama's Hawaiian birth was "not really a verification," it would seem your life has been nothing but an endless nightmare of very hard walls on all sides. But sally forth. There are no doubt more. Many more. And all just as hard and immovable given the arguments you wield.
Question! Are you saying/claiming parentage, both father and mother, has no bearing as to eligibility for POTUSA?
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.