Why Pelosi Signed Two Certificates of Nomination

You have NO reason to explain or apologize for
anything, butter.

James has no reason to get snarky with you ..
PERIOD .. other than that’s his SOP.

Shame on you, James. Butter is the most polite,
sincere and mannerly of FReepers, and has devoted
thousands of hours of her time in this pursuit,
without whatever the payback you’re getting to
counter every point you can in an obvious effort
to cast aspursions on it.

Your history and reputation precede you.

You owe butter an apology.

Check out his past posts since the day he joined. Check out his posts on other forums. He is a progressive, always has been. He hates Bush, Palin, Reagan,...... just read his past posts and what he posts elsewhere.

At least I must give you KUDOS on this. Thank you!!!

Seek - this is the thread I was telling you about.

Thanks butterdezillion

No, I don’t want to see Obama’s birth certificate, long or short form. There’s nothing on it that I need or that would change my opinion. I believe he’s ineligible because he didn’t have two citizen parents.

Even so, he’s the sitting POTUS and no lawsuit is going to change that. It’s impeachment, failed re-election bid, or nothing. Those are the options at this point. The second of which is a good possibility.

I wonder if Az’s gutsy governor could launch a Grand Jury investigation.

The trouble is that the Administrative Rules have always forbidden disclosures from the certificates themselves except the release of actual certificates. The exception is the index data.

If index data can be anything, then what would stop Fukino from saying the whole darn BC was index data and selectively choose to tell everybody all the gory details of the vaginal birth, infections, etc from the BC for somebody she particularly doesn’t like - while hiding EVERYTHING (including the legal status of their late, amended BC) for somebody she either likes or who is bribing her?

If Fukino can say 2 items are index data for you but all 65 items are index data for me, then exactly what disclosures are prohibited by the rules and by HRS 338-18a?

BTW, the HDOH has also said that because information allowed on the non-certified abbreviated birth certificate has to follow the same rules for what index data the director can release (no embarrassing info, no illegitimate births, etc), all the HDOH has to release is index data. That’s total bullcrap, as the Ombudsman indirectly confirmed. And it would mean that a non-certified COLB that they would print out would have everything but the child’s name and gender blacked out.

The birth announcements are a whole ‘nother story. Since 1976 the HDOH gives lists for the newspapers, but if they did anything before that - given what I’ve observed and can document - then they also pick and choose which births they report. Would that be within the power of the director - to report some births but not all? And to report some births to one paper but not the other?

See, the issue of due process is a big one, because if records can each be treated differently on a whim, then there is no way to make any sense out of what a government agency does, no way that it even makes any difference what their legal procedures, protocols, and rules are.

I believe that if Fukino was going to reveal anything from Obama’s birth certificate she could do so because Obama had already published what he said was his BC. But I believe the way she had to reveal it - by the language of UIPA, HRS 338-18a, and the HDOH Administrative Rules - was by making public the document itself in response to a UIPA request. She refuses to do that.

Thanks for the defense.

There’s one time I was pretty rude. I told Non-Sequitur he/she was full of bullsh!t. lol

Which is true, but I probably shouldn’t have said it quite like that. lol

Truly explosive butter! Great work! Thank you for your tireless dedication to the truth.

(snip)

“Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.”

Nancy Pelosi is an enemy of the state. After the Revolution...

The trouble is that the Administrative Rules have always forbidden disclosures from the certificates themselves except the release of actual certificates. The exception is the index data.

And the index data LAW has an exception. It gives the director discretion to release data for whatever reason she or he deems appropriate.

If index data can be anything, then what would stop Fukino from saying the whole darn BC was index data and selectively choose to tell everybody all the gory details of the vaginal birth, infections, etc from the BC for somebody she particularly doesn’t like - while hiding EVERYTHING (including the legal status of their late, amended BC) for somebody she either likes or who is bribing her?

Nothing legally stops her, unless perhaps it involves HIPAA laws covering health information, etc.

If Fukino can say 2 items are index data for you but all 65 items are index data for me, then exactly what disclosures are prohibited by the rules and by HRS 338-18a?

The point is that 338-18(a) doesn't specifically prohibit the director from releasing information because of its exception clause. Spokesbabe Okubo would be prohibited from releasing anything beyond basic index data, but Fukino, as the director, has statutory authority to decide what data can and can't be released. The part we should be upset about is the excuses made by Fukino that she can't release information when clearly she can.

The birth announcements are a whole ‘nother story. Since 1976 the HDOH gives lists for the newspapers, but if they did anything before that - given what I’ve observed and can document - then they also pick and choose which births they report. Would that be within the power of the director - to report some births but not all? And to report some births to one paper but not the other?

What newspapers print is up to the newspapers, not the DOH. I don't think it's realistic to assume that the DOH didn't provide a full list of births. What newspapers print is determined by the amount of space available, and it wouldn't be unlikely for them to omit listings that just didn't fit in the paper on a given day. They may have had criteria for omitting birth listings, such as being outside certain geographic regions or not publishing births to unwed mothers, etc.

See, the issue of due process is a big one, because if records can each be treated differently on a whim, then there is no way to make any sense out of what a government agency does, no way that it even makes any difference what their legal procedures, protocols, and rules are.

I think we're seeing this with the passport records, except this isn't based on a whim.

I believe that if Fukino was going to reveal anything from Obama’s birth certificate she could do so because Obama had already published what he said was his BC. But I believe the way she had to reveal it - by the language of UIPA, HRS 338-18a, and the HDOH Administrative Rules - was by making public the document itself in response to a UIPA request. She refuses to do that.

I still disagree in that the 338-18(d) could be used by Fukino to release particular pieces of information. In particular, I've always felt the quickest and simplest legal way she could confirm Obama's alleged COLB is by verifying what certificate number is on Obama's official, original birth record. The fact that they have avoided doing so - when there's no reason no to - tells me Obama's COLB is not legit.

Certificate of Nomination Summary

By butterdezillion

Why Pelosi and Germond Signed a Different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii

Based on the outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, Canada Free Press broke a story showing that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.

First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.

It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.

I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot.

A summary of the documents:

2000 DNC Cert - standard certificate with typed eligibility language added
2000 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National convention and received at Hawaii Elections Office the same day (hand-delivered)
2004 DNC Cert - standard certificate, no eligibility language
2004 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National Convention.
2008 DNC Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language
2008 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language removed. Signed during the National Convention one day before the DNC Cert was signed. Mailed to the Hawaii Elections Office by DNC Attorney Joe Sandler together with DNC cert and transmittal letter

In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National Convention, on the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility) and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal, to the Hawaii Elections Office.

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?

A former DNC official allegedly said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates for other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed, just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?

Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the Hawaii election law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified eligibility.

I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.

Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.

The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.

All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections Office. Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.

The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”. I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.

This entry was posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:03 am and is filed under Uncategorized.

“Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.”

I see what you’re saying but the HDOH says there is no “other such data as the director” has authorized. They say index data authorized for release is type of event, name, and gender.

If the director can authorize anything and everything to be released for just certain people, I don’t understand what HRS 338-18a even means or why it exists. Is it just to say the director can do whatever she wants but nobody in her office can? Maybe it depends on how it’s interpreted. Maybe the only limits to Fukino are the exceptions listed in UIPA. I don’t know.

But I do know that Fukino has been using HRS 338-18a as the catch-all reason for not releasing anything. Neither she nor the AG’s office will say why all of a sudden HRS 338-18a doesn’t forbid her from making an announcement of the birthplace listed on Obama’s records.

And that’s on reason that I agree that a big problem is Fukino lying about what she supposedly can’t release. The Ombudsman caught her in that lie but apparently refused to do anything about it.

The newspaper announcements were a continuous-running thing. Announcements were printed as much as a month after the birth so space issues wouldn’t have been the deciding factor. And even accounting for the locations of the births, I think about a third of the births the CDC Natality Report listed for Oahu in August 1961 (for instance) didn’t get printed in the Star-Bulletin. The Nordyke twins, for instance, were born in Honolulu and never made it into the Star-Bulletin even though there were days around then when the paper had no birth announcements listed at all and could easily have fit their announcement.

Hopefully I’ll soon have the last bit of information I need in order to do a complete summary of what we know about the birth announcement situation. Feels like I’ve been saying that forever but you wouldn’t believe the amount of obfuscation involved. Well... you know enough about this stuff that you probably do know what I’m dealing with. lol.

I agree with you that if information has been released to the public for birth announcements, or even just a posting at the HDOH office that was available for public viewing, it makes it disingenuous for the HDOH to argue that they can’t release that information. If they couldn’t release it, then why did they already release it?

And you’re absolutely dead-on about the birth certificate number. That, right there, is the Achilles heel that could expose this whole mess, and they know it and are circling the wagons.

The passport situation is another thing which is very quickly becoming a legal problem for Obama and his minions. Watching that one develop is like watching hot and cold fronts moving toward each other and knowing it’s only a matter of time before the tornadic rotation begins. The proverbial excrement hitting the rotating object. If it was all just a game and wasn’t putting the nation in jeopardy, it would be hilarious to watch.

As a criminal usurper Barry won’t be eligible for Secret Service protection any more than he was eligible to run for POTUS.

Thank you. That has the additions I made last night.

It’s a little bit embarrassing that everybody else knows how to do this and I’m such a moron on HTML. lol. I know I’m among friends so it’s actually kinda funny to me. Sort of like having my 8th-grade son show me how to do the scans last night, like having to look up to my 9th-grade son now since he passed me in height, realizing my 11-year-old daughter sings better than I do, and tasting that my 16-year-old daughter makes better cookies than I do. lol.

Most of all I’m just so thankful for the abilities of the people in my life who help me out, and thankful that we work for a common goal. That includes you, Danae, so thanks for doing this and helping us all out. =)

BTW, do you think there’s anything psychological about the fact that the only word I recognize in your tagline is “anal”? lol.

I’m not sure how I got a . for my tagline, but maybe that was Freudian too; I must have been feeling pretty small whenever I typed that in. lol.

So what does your tagline mean?

That is not what Butter is pointing out. She is pointing out that Pelosi et al. produced a DIFFERENT certification form for Hawaii. One no other state had, and one that Hawaii had never before used. Pelosi certified HAWAII’s RESULTS. Hawaii REFUSED to do so.

The issue does not come from the DNC documents. It comes from Pelosi Certifying Obama was eligible FOR the State of Hawaii, because the state of Hawaii refused to certify that Obama was constitutionally - legally - eligible for POTUS!!

I will be honest, I stumbled on how to do it by accident.

This is how it works, you highlight the text including the links that you wish to post on FR. Then, while it is highlighted, you RIGHT click on it which will open up a drop down list. On that list somewhere, depending on what browser you use, you will see an option to “View selection source”. Choosing that option will open up a second browser window with a bunch of computer language which is also highlighted. You then right click on that already highlighted computer code, and hit COPY.

Then you can come back to FR and in the “Your Reply” window or the posting window, just hit paste.

It is a good idea at that point to hit the preview window to check that you got what you wanted. This is how I do it. Otherwise you can spend HOURS formatting text and inserting links and blah blah bla.

Try it once or twice and then just never go past the preview stage, you will be able to see how it would appear once posted live. Hope this helps! If you have more questions, just Private message me and I will help all I can!

LOL

Its actually Old Irish, a form of Gaelic. Its from the movie “Excalibur” back in the early 1980’s, a favorite movie of mine. The words translated means “Serpents breath, charm of life and death, thy omen of making”. So in this sense Anailnathrac means breath of the snake or serpent which could also mean dragon depending on how you translate it.

Its a tag line I used for years after first actually posting at FR instead of Lurking.

As for your tag line, when you post something next time, look just under the Reply Window. That is the the tagline space and likely at some point you accidentally just hit tab and a period to end a sentence and the period ended up in your tag line.

I wonder if Az’s gutsy governor could launch a Grand Jury investigation.

No, she cannot. But she sure could advocate for one and put a lot of pressure on the Attorney General.
The Arizona state legislature could investigate the issue since Obama did sign an official document of that state attesting to being “a natural born citizen of the United States.”
The absolute perfect person to launch a Grand Jury investigation is Mark L. Bennett, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii because Obama’s birth records are Hawaii documents. But AG Bennett has shown no interest in this issue.

Butterdezillion's Blog

Certificate of Nomination Summary