Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Ah the Doobie brothers must have slept in today-finally got the talking points?
You’re right. You did ping me...I read the response and promptly forgot it. I’m blaming it on *information overload* and not old age.
Sure sounds like a set up to me. Saturday is going to be interesting. I hope some *plants* don’t start something but with the dems you can never be sure.
Even BO came out with some comments about the burning of the korans. Is he warning us or telling us about the supposed violence that may happen?
I’m waiting for my husband to scan the others so I can upload them. They had been posted on Justin Riggs’ site but he took his blog down. What I have is the same as what Justin had, except that I also have a transmittal letter, which I will also post.
You will see that for 2000
DNC - standard cert with eligibility language added by typewriter
HDP - cert with eligibility language, filed a month after National Convention, received at HI Elections Office the day it was signed.
For 2004
DNC - standard cert no eligibility language
HDP - cert with eligibility language, signed a month after the National Convention
And of course we already know, for 2008
DNC - standard cert with eligibility language added by word processor
HDP - cert with eligibility language removed, received at the HI Elections Office by mail in an envelope with the DNC Cert and a transmittal letter by Joe Sandler
If they were interested at all in the Constitution being followed or any kind of constitutional principles in government, and really wanted to defeat 0thugga and his ilk, they would not be spending their precious human lives on threads on FR pi**ing on everyone who is trying to do just that.
They would be elsewhere trying to further the conservative agenda.
But no, they while away their time on FR pi**ing on these threads.
They are nothing more than 0thugga helpers and enablers, whether volunteer or paid.
“Although it wasn’t widely known in Dec. 2007, we are now aware that Obama almost surely committed perjury back then under Arizona law, since he is indeed almost surely not a natural born citizen. But he undoubtedly knew that the Arizona AG is a Democrat, hence no risk of prosecution for him.”
And? Have you filed a complaint with anyone?
You nailed it on that one. They do CYA for each other.
I contacted Issa’s office. They got it and the aide was going to get it to him.
I contacted Culberson’s office. They couldn’t find it so I sent it again this afternoon. Called to make sure they received it and they hadn’t. Double-checked to make sure it was sent to the right fax number; it was. The fax sheet here said that it had been sent. But they didn’t get it.
He recommended that I send it via e-mail. So I sent an e-mail with the original file for the fax attached. Asked him to reply right away so I know he got it. He e-mailed just now saying he got it and would bring it to Culberson’s attention. So good. =)
Great news! My faith in their aides has been renewed. However, the next hurdle is will they read it and respond to you?
melancholy...thought you might be interested.
I found this case at wikipedia's entry on legal standing, and then went and read the decision. It was identified as the case where the general concept of standing was introduced in 1922. In 1923, in Frothingham V. Mellon & Massachusetts V. Mellon, the court came up with its judical test for standing.
In the cases about Obama's eligiblity, standing is the argument presented by Obama's defense team (and was also used by McCain), which as we see now, only applies if you're challenging a specific statute or constitutional amendment. However, unless the plaintiff's are aware of this, the court isn't going to volunteer that bit of information, as this provides a convenient 'out' to avoid hearing such a case. Whether the part I quoted has been cited or overruled, I can't say. I have a feeling that it has not. The defense team and the court are basically taking advantage of the plaintiff's ignorance of the law. It's much like the way the HI DOH never told anyone that they could publish index data or provide abbreviated birth certificate. They'll just hope you don't know the facts and accept their dodge.
Even if the plaintiff doesn’t know to make the case, isn’t the judge supposed to follow legal precedents? Wouldn’t a judge know that the defense’s claim of “standing” isn’t right?
I’d be really interested to know how many cases per year are rejected in District Court because of “standing”.
So the whole thing of there having to be particular individual harm that can be remedied by the court... that’s only ever been required to be the case if a person is challenging a law or constitutional amendment?
Seems like that’s a pretty big point to leave off, for the lawyers who have been talking about “standing” all this time.
Any lawyers around here have any comments on this?
I’m not sure if this explains it, but the judicial test for standing is from a different court case than the one that says private citizens don’t have a general right challenge statutes or constitutional amendments.
Ok. So, your conclusion that the HDP changed its procedures in 2008 for generating the certification letter is based solely on the fact that they datestamped their letter a month earlier than usual? Is that correct? I’m not talking about the change in language used just the procedural change to which you referred.
Any possibility you could type (here in the comments) the text that the HDP used in their letters from 2000 and 2004, verbatim? Or do we have wait for the scans?
Arizona PUMAs have. (I believe they did so immediately after the Democratic Convention in 2008.) Their request for an investigation by the AG was ignored.
A lot of things in 2008 were based on preliminary information, I personally believe right now Obama’s right to privacy can be negated by the current known circumstances, especially the large percentage of Americans who doubt his eligibility and place of birth. In other words the case has ripened and should be followed through to fruition.
I suspect the next few weeks will shine more light on the situation. Obie knows the truth is coming, its just a matter of when and how.
Obama doesn’t have a traditional right to privacy. He’s what is legally known as a public figure. As president, he is expected to release records such as tax returns and health records, and anything else that would be in the public interest.
The docs are at my husband’s office where our scanner is. Hopefully he’ll e-mail me the scans before he even comes home. I can upload them when he does.
In the 2 elections that Hawaii has the records for before 2008, the HDP signed their cert with eligibility language a month after the National Convention and then hand-delivered the cert to the Elections Office.
In 2008 they specifically took out just the eligibility language from the standard cert they had used the previous 2 elections, signed it at the National Convention a day before Pelosi signed anything, and gave it to Sandler who sent all of it together to the Elections Office.
The DNC tried to explain their own cert for Hawaii as being extra “cautious”. But that makes no sense, given that the HDP and DNC filed their certs together and used the only combination that had NOT already proven sufficient in the past. That’s not caution, that’s an experiment. Caution would be if both the DNC and HDP had included the eligibility language.
In 2000 the DNC exercised caution. They made a cert just for Hawaii by typing in the added eligibility language to their standard cert and signing the new cert just special for Hawaii - even though the HDP also had the eligibility language in their cert which was filed a month later. That’s caution.
In 2004 they didn’t do that. They let the HDP certify eligibility. It worked just fine.
The only year the HDP didn’t certify eligibility was in 2008 - and by the time Pelosi signed her cert she knew that the HDP was not going to certify eligibility.
The DNC wants people to believe they added the eligibility language to be cautious, but the fact is that they coordinated with the HDP and would have had BOTH the HDP and DNC certify eligibility if they were being cautious.
If they were just showing standard care they would have let the HDP certify eligibility as had worked just fine in 2004.
If they wanted to be RISKY they would have tried something different that had never worked before - just the DNC certifying eligibility.
They SAY they were being cautious, but the fact is they deliberately chose the riskiest of 3 options. Why? It wasn’t because the laws had changed. It wasn’t because they had asked the Elections Office and found out it didn’t matter who certified eligibility. Why did they take the riskiest route - the only one that had never been tried and worked before?
The only answer that makes sense is that they were willing to do the risky route because the HDP refused to certify eligibility as they always had in the past. The HDP refused to do the safest route so the DNC had to cover for them by doing the previously-untried experiment.
So that brings us back to the question I said was so important: Why in 2008 did the HDP deliberately take out the eligibility language from their standard form? Why did they let the DNC know ahead-of-time that they weren’t going to certify eligibility, so the DNC would know they needed to do so?
When Obama For America posted his COLB image online at FactCheck.org, they publicly disclosed confidential/private information from his Hawaii vital records. Then when officials of Hawaii released statements about Obama’s birth, they too publicly disclosed confidential information. The disclosure of such information negated, by law, the legal ability of the Hawaii DoH to refuse to release official copies of Obama’s COLB.
According to Hawaii’s laws, once you make it public or make a public statement about it, the data is no longer private and the public is therefore entitled to see it. Hawaii is ignoring the law.
Absolutely right!
Technically Hawaii didn’t release any confidential information and they certainly didn’t release it when the factlack dot org photos were published. Those came out in August 2008. Chiyome Fukino’s first statement about having an original birth certificate on file didn’t come out until October. Her next statement, which came the closest to ‘releasing’ confidential information wasn’t until July 2009, but that information would easily fall under the information that is legally permissible for release by the director.
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.