Skip to comments.DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible
Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
click here to read article
Hawaii has been extremely careful not to say anything specific about the COLB and especially not about the photographs posted by FactChexMix.org. By doing so, there's no tangible (pun intended) way to link them to the forgery attempt. They've said they saw an original birth certificate but were careful not to say they saw what was on it. Then they cited plural, unknown vital records to make a statement that would have been otherwise illegal to make (providing Fukino was being consistent and honest). They've also REFUSED to deal with the FractionalCheck.org certificate number, thereby voiding any responsibility for reporting the obvious fraud that was perpetrated by said party. The other thing is that the adminsitrative rules give them the ability to avoid releasing any information that would potentially 'harm the character or reputation' of the person involved. That's pretty broad leeway to avoid confirming shenanigans.
Was State asked whether they had a passport application for Barry Soetoro?
I was already aware of this form, but signing a form isn’t quite the same as making a personal statement, especially when a form like this is treated as a formality. By the time you’ve signed 57 of these, like Obama thinks he’s signed, there’s no clear evidence he knew what he was signing his name to.
Just a note: Standing would only apply if you’re bringing a civil lawsuit. What we’re looking at with the fraudulent cert number is criminal fraud, which would be an impeachable offense. The state of Illinois would be the place to try to pursue this, since fictioncheck.org claims to have photographed the alleged COLB in Chicago. No standing is needed, but you would need to find the proper law enforcement officials or a prosecutor willing to tackle this case. Might be tough.
If you need it here is a link:
I know it is not a SCOTUS case, but the argument he makes is still interesting.
The Congress was authorized to provide for the punishment of felonies committed on the high seas, and for punishing certain other crimes. The common law furnished the only definition of felonies The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, was to be by jury; and the constitution speaks of treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, an uniform system of bankruptcy, attainder, and the writ of habeas corpus; all which were unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law. In like manner, the amendments to the constitution make provisions in reference to the right of petition, search warrants, capital crimes, grand jury, trial by jury, bail, fines, and the rule of the common law. In these instances, no legislative definition or exposition was apparently deemed necessary by the framers of the constitution. They are spoken of as substantial things, already existing and established, and which will continue to exist. Lynch v. Clark, NY 1844.
I think I would have expanded his discussion of felonies to point out Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, Book 4 Chapter 5 titled “Of Offenses against the Law of Nations”. And Blackstone’s discussion of the types of offenses. He lists three but its the third one that is interesting - “piracy”. And he describes “piracy” as “The offense of piracy, by common law, consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.” So we have offenses against the law of nations, piracy and felonies on the high seas. Which sounds similar to Article I Section 8 clause 10 of the US Constitution.
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the Law of Nations.”
And I think I would have included a discussion of “ex post facto” laws (Article I Section 9 clause 3). In particular, I would have included the following passage from Madison’s “Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention”. August 29, 1787 -”Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.” Apparently Blackstone’s Commentaries was at the convention.
Have you ever wondered why there is not a single, solitary piece of evidence that the framers of the constitution considered Vattel’s definition of citizenship. I mean written evidence, not theory or conjecture. The Founder’s loved to write, if alive today, they would probably all have blogs and be twittering each other constantly. Yet in all their letters to each other, in all their diaries and journals, in all their autobiographies, in all their political phamplets not one single mention of the change to Vattel’s definition of citizenship.
Jay, Madison, and Hamilton wrote 85 Federalist Papers in which they dissected every aspect of the new constitution. In some 20 of them, they discuss the executive branch and the new office of presidency. In one, they discuss the presidential salary. But they never discuss the qualifications to be president.
Do you think it would have been negligent of the Framers to change the definition of citizenship, the one that they had been using for 300 hundred years and not tell anyone? Even if they didn’t tell anyone what the new definition was, shouldn’t they have at least mentioned that there was a new definition?
Which gets us back to Lewis Sandford’s quote from Lynch v Clark. The Founders didn’t have to explain the Constitution’s definition of habeas corpus or ex post facto, because they were well defined terms. Terms whose meaning were well understood, that didn’t need to be explained. Terms from the common law.
Which is probably why they didn’t feel the need to explain or define the meaning of “natural born”.
Edge, I know you’re probably trying to help, but pursuing a
criminal fraud suit in the “state of Illinois”??!
I’d just assume try this in the District of Columbia or the
State of New York versus the State of Confusion run by the
same corrupt system that help elevate Obama to the national
embarrassment his is in the first place!
Looks like parsi got pw3ned.
I feel like I’m on All My Children sometimes. Listen and learn
You work at 7-11. Your female boss sexually harasses you. Your complaint:
1. I work at 7-11 as a janitor.
2. My boss, Billy Lou Pervy sexually harassed me a whole bunch.
Now, you get tossed out of court because you did NOT plead any facts. You just concluded she sexually harassed you.
Here’s how you plead facts.
1. I’m edge 19 and I work at the 7-11 on Frump Road. Although very metro-sexual, I am a straight male. I am 21 years old.
2. My immediate supervisor is Betty Lou Pervy, a 36 year old un-married female .
3. On June 3, 2010, while at work I was approached by Ms. Pervy while I was cleaning out the female restroom.
4. Ms. Pervy grabbed my mop handle and pulled me close to her and said, “I am a cougar. How you would like to be my prey, right now? Growllll”
5. Being a virgin, I was not sure what she met, but then she touched me in a place my mommy said was bad.
Do you see the difference? One, you are laying out the facts and people can follow the story. Heck, they probably can’t wait to read what happened. The other, is just a legal blob that doesn’t really explain squat.
parsy, who says you need to learn the difference
True. And the ones who honestly believe that communism is really about goodness and light will be disillusioned when they see it’s really about power and lies.
That’s when there’s real hope for change.
Not a lawsuit, but criminal charges. This way, standing is not an issue, and the real certificate could be forced out. As for Illinois, it is where the crime occurred. I can’t help that, however, there are federal charges that can be brought up.
Parsley's been pwn3d so many times,
he can only play checkers now.
Why did Fukino take down the administrative rules from their website during the campaign and for a year after the election was over?
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, Parsy.
Wanna know when I first started thinking there was more to this stuff? When Berg filed his lawsuit and Obama chose to fight it instead of simply paying the $20 and being done with it.
If Obama chose to do that so he could make laughingstocks out of people who still take the rule of law seriously then he deserves to be hung by the nearest lamp post. That would make him a HEINOUS criminal instead of just the common variety - because what he is out to destroy is the very FABRIC of the nation.
So which belief makes a person more of a delusional conspiracy theorist - that Obama is hiding something that shows him ineligible, or that he is using some stupid snotty ploy to destroy the fabric of America?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to compel an investigation, and it’s the investigation that shows up the direct evidence. That’s what is supposed to happen. It can’t happen in mafia-land though, and that’s where we’re at.
Right now the best that the State of Hawaii has for documentation for Obama is no better than what every illegal alien in the country has.
But that’s not evidence of anything?
What did I tell you about shtick?? The process in Hawaii between how a certificate is filed, when a cert number is issued and when the announcement is published in the newspaper shows a clear linear and chronological progression. Obama’s number can’t be higher than the Nordyke twins. The refusal by the HI DOH to release index data per the certificate number as they are statutorily permitted, as well protected under the UIPA, is compelling.
Talking about your day job at 7-11 doesn’t refute the clear evidence of fraud.
They must be calling in the second shifters .. or are we on the fourth ... LOL
Fortitude and energy, FRiends ..
True. The Vattel stuff is a end around play. The courts are not masochistic. They’re not going to torture themselves to add a third kind of citizen definition when they don’t have to.
Plus, the non-legal types do not know about the reception(?) statutes whereby English common law was adopted by the states. That is why law students have to suffer thru Haxley Buxtenfield or whatever and the Statute of Frauds, etc. And every colonial frontier lawyer has his Americanized Blackstone set. I have a mismatched set from the 1840’s(?).
English common law is not something the courts are unfamiliar with. This would be a really fun thing to brief up, except for the fact that Wong has already done all the heavy lifting.
I enjoy the historical perspective of law. I had top habeus paper by doing “The Rime of The Habeus Petitioner” wherein I rewrote the Rime of the Ancient Mariner into a habeus poem, with annotations and extensive footnotes. A blast. Cited works from Salem Witch trials, 1812 Travels in India, etc.. Professors wanted me to publish it. Maybe one day....
parsy, who is out of action for a while
Then set your alleged facts forth in a legal-like manner so that the rest of us don’t have to guess at your meaning. Surely, your Birther buds can help you out. Heck, with your command of the facts, shouldn’t take you 6 or 7 minutes.
parsy, who is betting you can’t do it, because your allegations will break down into a puddle
So earlier when you quoted from Minor v. Happersett, where you quoting from dictum or holding?
|Even the Pervy's are smart enough to know that if CROOKED people provide a document to MORE CROOKED people, THAT DOCUMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
Especially when that document hasn't even appeared in Court to be accepted as an admissible FACT.
It's not rocket science, Palsi.
Now, get back in your monkey suit and back to your checkers game.
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.