Yeah, the threats to the objector were not a warning shot to Kobach at all...
And Bennett saying in advance that he was going to put Obama’s name on the ballot as long as Hawaii sent him ANYTHING doesn’t speak to his integrity either...
I have a bridge to sell you and I’m sure you’ll buy it too.
Meanwhile, all you Obots ignore the questions I’ve asked. Specifically, is it legally OK for a public official to ask a question directly in a legal request and then assume that the answer given under oath was wrong even though there is no evidence of that and clarification was never asked? Can officials simply set aside the presumption of regularity whenever it is convenient for them? Are we governed by laws or by the wishful thinking of public officials?
I believe I know your answer but it would be good for you to hear it coming from your own mouth so you can realize your own lawlessness.
State statutes and state administrative regulations often give elected and appointed government officials considerable freedom and latitude to act in accordance with their own judgement.
However the actions of a public official can be challenged in court. There have been eleven lawsuits challenging the actions of Hawaii officials concerning the birth records of Barack Obama. The courts have upheld the judgements and rulings of Hawaii governmental officials in every instance.
As for Secretary of State Bennett in Arizona, the fact that an Arizona court had already ruled two months earlier that Obama was a natural born citizen BEFORE Bennett received his Letter of a Verification from Hawaii probably influenced his attitude toward this issue considerably. Bennett checked into Obama’s birth vital record at the request of constituents from the city of Surprise, Arizona’s Tea Party chapter.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012