Why Pelosi Signed Two Certificates of Nomination

Nancy Pelosi signed one certificate of nomination which was sent to 49 states and another - saying that Obama is Constitutionally eligible - to Hawaii. People have asked why she didn't send the eligibility-certifying one to all the states, but the more pressing question is, "Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama's eligibility?"

This is on my blog but I'll post the whole thing in the first response and the link to the blog post in the 2nd response so the links will be (hopefully) clickable.

I hadn’t thought about a resignation. That’d be spectacular. If only ...

The more I think about it the more possible I think resignation is. If Obama's eligibility issue ever has to be completely explored (in response to a court-ordered subpoena to the HDOH for the elusive long form birth certificate to get on the 2012 ballot for example) and Obama is exposed as the complete and utter fraud we think he is, he's going to take a whole lot of people down with him. Think of the people of all political persuasions who have aided and abetted and enabled this deception. Much better for Obama to quietly resign for health reasons and try to make eligibility a moot point.

Rush even pointed out in his show today how weak and inarticulate Obama sounded at the press conference today. If Obama were a Republican, the media would be questioning his cognitive abilities.

I do not need to know if he was born in a hospital, his parents’ occupations, his parents’ birthplaces or whether the newborn was part of a multiple birth. The Constitution does not require that information to confirm eligibility. A confirmation/authentification deposition or a notarized letter from any of those officials of the state of Hawaii would be accepted by any Court in the land.

BS more faulty logic process-the Constitution requires him to be a Natural Born Citizen and he is being challenged. Presentation of a notorized letter or deposition would be met with complete discovery of the subject matter. A deposition or notorized letter is not better evidence than the original contemporaneous long form record and evidence procured after hospital and doctor are known (if any) allowing further investigation for "information that could reasonably lead to admissible evidence" You have been previously advised of this fact and you continue to bloviate....you fail matchbook school of law "evidence" and "discovery".

You have to look at that statement carefully. She said that she had seen the records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii.

“Verifying” simply means that an oath was made that the statement was true - not that the sworn statement is actually true.

The State of Hawaii will not vouch for the truth of those “verified” statements on Obama’s BC because his BC has been amended - a fact which calls the trustworthiness of the whole document into question.

That’s why AG Bennett would not - and did not - approve that statement by Fukino. Okubo made yet ANOTHER false statement to the public when she claimed that he had.

Just like she made a false statement to the public when she said that they were requesting a ruling from the AG on whether they have to provide a 1961 birth index. She said that to Mark Niesse of the AP but when I asked for the records whereby they asked for that ruling I was told there were no records for that.

Just like she made a false statement to the public when she said that revealing the certificate number would enable somebody to hack their computer system.

She’s got so many untrue public statements she should wear them like track medals on her chest - her contribution to uphold the usurper. I’m sure she has enough to have lettered and made the varsity team. lol

BS more faulty logic process-the Constitution requires him to be a Natural Born Citizen and he is being challenged. Presentation of a notorized letter or deposition would be met with complete discovery of the subject matter. A deposition or notorized letter is not better evidence than the original contemporaneous long form record and evidence procured after hospital and doctor are known (if any) allowing further investigation for “information that could reasonably lead to admissible evidence” You have been previously advised of this fact and you continue to bloviate....you fail matchbook school of law “evidence” and “discovery”.

Let me see if I’ve got this lunacy correct: You really believe that the Republican Governor of Hawaii, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii and the Republican appointed Director of Health and Registrar of Vital Statistics have all gone on the record stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and they DON’T have an original copy of a long form birth certificate at their disposal that says the exact same thing? Is that what you are trying to sell with a straight face?

Why should I care or be influenced by the “advisements” of a few anonymous people posting on an internet site? I prefer to look at what has actually occurred in the real world, not in birther fantasyland, over the last three years.

While you may want to see the original long form vault copy birth certificate, judges and justices obviously don’t. It was the PLAINTIFFS, not the defense in the Indiana eligibility challenge (Ankeny v Governor Daniels) who obviously submitted copies of the factcheck.org scanned images of the Obama COLB with their legal briefs since the Court made reference to the factcheck.org images that had been referenced by the plaintiffs.
Here’s the quotation from the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision: “The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled ‘The Law of Nations,’ and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.”

A subpoena could release the orginal document to a court but no one has yet sought one. I’m left to wonder why not?

Issues involving birth documents are dealt with in courts every single day. A certified copy of the Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii has been and will be good enough. At the bottom of every Hawaii COLB it clearly states the following: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” HRS 338-18. Judges and justices are very familiar with what that means.

There have been 73 lawsuits or appeals adjudicated at the local, state, federal and US Supreme Court levels and none have found Obama to be ineligible. The term used most often for these lawsuits is “frivolous” and birther attorney Orly Taitz was sanctioned to the tune of $20,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit and she has paid that fine after being rejected for a restraining order by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo was assessed court costs by the Third US Cirucuit Court of Appeals for filing a frivolous appeal. He’s still out collecting recyclable cans to pay his court costs.

And now you know..........................the REST of story!

I have to disagree with you about that statement.

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," she said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."

Fukino says the original records themselves verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. The word verify means "to prove to be true" or "to ascertain the correctness of." It's pretty clear to me what she meant.

Regarding Fukino's statement, Okubo said:

The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

I also have to disagree that the AG "refused to corroborate" Fukino's statement. First, the Post & Email presented their questions to the Deputy AG, Jill Nagamine, and not to the AG, Mark Bennett. Second, they did not explicitly ask the AG's office to corroborate Fukino's statement. The P&E asked two, very specific, leading questions, neither of which said anything about corroborating a statement.

I am seeking some information in response to 2 questions I have. Please understand that your response or non-response will be quoted by our paper.
Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to defin he citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?
Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the defition of a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America?
I put my question to the Deputy Attorney General to avoid putting the Attorney General in a situation of a conflict of interest, if he in fact, did, as Dr. Fukino claims, advise her regarding her July statement.
Nagamine, in response, asserted that any answer to such questions given by her office would represent a conflict interest for her office.
And that is an explicit admission that Dr. Fukino had no statutory authority nor duty to make such a statement, and that the Attorney General’s office will not stand behind Fukino’s claim that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen."

The Post & Email is full of bunk. If they wanted a confirmation, they should have asked for one. The Deputy AG refused to answer those two specific questions. A conflict of interest does not necessarily indicate a disagreement. There may be legal reasons that she can't answer the questions. And since the original statement said Fukino had nothing futher to add, I wouldn't expect any further comment from the State of Hawaii. Whatever the reason, one cannot draw a conclusion that the AG's office refused to corroborate anything. What they refused to do was answer the reporters questions.

Given that Obama’s birth certificate is amended the State of Hawaii cannot say where Obama was born. They can only say what the BC CLAIMS about his birth - which is exactly what Fukino said.

The legal definition of “verify”, from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lqkbirWjp9kJ:legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/verify+legal+definition+of+%22verify%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us , is “To make certain, to substantiate, or to confirm by formal oath, affirmation, or Affidavit”

Fukino is not verifying anything, nor does she say she verified anything. She says the vital records (plural) verify. And they could be as wrong as sin and still “verify” according to the legal definition. All Fukino is saying is that they have a sworn statement somewhere claiming that Obama was born in Hawaii.

They could have a DOZEN sworn statements and that amended BC still doesn’t mean a thing legally unless and until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and THAT BODY verifies - signs their name in testimony to the truthfulness of - the probative value of the amended birth certificate.

You’re reading this as if Fukino herself was VERIFYING (swearing to the truthfulness of) Obama’s alleged Hawaii birth. Read it carefully. She says the RECORDS verify - not that she verifies, or that the State of Hawaii verifies. All her statement means is that they have sworn statements claiming Obama was born in Hawaii.

If those statements had been made in proper time then the State of Hawaii would vouch for the truthfulness of the claims by calling them prima facie evidence. Because they weren’t made in proper time, the State of Hawaii can only acknowledge, without comment, that the sworn claims exist. For Fukino to say anything more than that would be a violation of HRS 338-17.

Consider, for instance, the difference if she had said, “I have seen the original vital records and verify that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.”

Totally different statement, yet that is what people think that she said.

Maybe Okubo verbally asked (by phone) for a ruling. The law says they don't have to create records in order to respond to a request. So if the request was verbal or in a format from which they can't easily export data, such as Instant Messenger, Google Talk, or Skype, then the answer of "no records responsive to your request" is appropriate.

This example is what I mean when I say that you are speculating. You've jumped to a conclusion without concrete evidence or proof. I suspect you'll view this response as a defense of Okubo, but it isn't. She clearly hasn't been forthright in some of her responses. But that further makes my point that one cannot make definitive conclusions from her statements.

I’m saying that she makes statements which aren’t backed up by anything when people ask for substantiation. If she wanted a ruling - rather than simple counsel - I believe that would have to be in writing. I could check that.

I also asked for all communications to and from their office regarding whether or not they could print a 1961 birth index, as well as documentation showing their policy of only collecting index data in 5-year increments (how the heck do you only collect by 5-year increments when you’ve got a continuously-running system with data entered by computer?) I would bet you $100 that I never see anything. They’ll say they don’t have it. They don’t have anything in that office - even what is required by law. Things they should do in written form they do without written form so they never have to document anything.

My point, though, is that she spouts from the mouth without offering any substantiation.

You’re reading this as if Fukino herself was VERIFYING (swearing to the truthfulness of) Obama's alleged Hawaii birth.

No, I'm not. I read it the same way you did. I said:

Fukino says the original records themselves verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.

You've said that you're not a lawyer and that you don't understand legal terminology. I think you're way over-reaching on the definition of "verify." You've chosen to focus on the definition that means affirmation and are completely disregarding the definition that means substantiate. And in doing so, you've created your own facts.

And they could be as wrong as sin and still “verify” according to the legal definition.

That's incorrect. When a record verifies a fact, the record itself is testimony of that fact. Every year our kids' schools have residency verification. We're asked to bring a utility bill to verify our address. Legally, that utility bill verifies where we live.

They could have a DOZEN sworn statements and that amended BC stil doesn’t mean a thing legally unless and until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and THAT BODY verifies - signs their name in testimony to the truthfulness of - the probative value of the amended birth certificate.

The Registrar who issued Obama's COLB is the "administrative person" who verified the data on Obama's birth records when he/she assigned a certificate number to it. The state of Hawaii would not issue a certified COLB that has unconfirmed data on it. Again, you're speculating that Obama has an amended BC, but Okubo said there were no amended records in the birth index for Obama.

I don’t explicitly trust Okubo. She has clearly not been forthright when she should or could have been. However, she is the official spokesperson. So her statements do carry some amount of weight.

Regarding your research butter, the time that I put into conversing with you and asking for clarification should show you that I am trying to verify your work for my own satisfaction. I don’t often do that. Most of the time, I just correct errant information and move on.

IMO your work has a lot of speculation in it. And some of it is probably spot on, but some of it needs concrete evidence in order for me to verify it. I trust but verify. That’s who I am. It doesn’t say anything about you. It says something about what level of verification I need in order to accept your conclusions.

http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/admin_rules/subtitle_1/5-1.pdf This is the Administrative Rules for the Attorney General’s office. Note especially Subchapter 4, which deals with agency requests such as what Okubo told Mark Niesse her department was asking the AG for a “ruling” on. Subchapter 4 begins like this:
.......................................
“§5-1-61 Petitions for adoption, amendment, or
repeal of rules.

(a) Any interested person or any
agency of the state or county government may petition
the department for the adoption, amendment,
modification, or repeal of any rule which is designed
to implement, interpret, or prescribe law, policy,
procedure, or practice requirements of the department.

(b) Petitions for rulemaking action shall
conform to the requirements of section 5-1-35. The
petition shall set forth the text of the proposed rule
or amendment desired or specify the rule the repeal of
which is desired, state concisely the nature of the
petitioner’s interest in the subject matter and the
reasons for seeking the adoption, amendment, or repeal
of the rule, and include any facts, views, arguments,
and data deemed relevant by the petitioner. The
department may also require the petitioner to serve
other persons or governmental agencies known to be
interested in the proposed rulemaking. No request for
the adoption, amendment, modification, or repeal of a
rule that does not conform to the requirements set
forth above shall be considered by the department.
......................................

I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like it has to be written.

Amended BC’s have certificate numbers but the BC’s themselves are not legally valid, e.g. they do not qualify to be prima facie evidence. The State of Hawaii does not “verify” the accuracy of amended BC’s. That’s why HRS 338-17 says amended BC’s require a special procedure before amended BC’s can have any legal value.

It should be noted, however, that Fukino never said that Obama has a certificate number or that his birth certificate is legally valid.

How would you describe an amended BC that was legally invalid but had sworn statements saying that somebody was born in Hawaii? If you said, “I have seen the original vital records which verify that this person was born in Hawaii”, would that be a legally accurate statement? Would that mean that YOU verify a Hawaii birth, or would it mean that the records verify a Hawaii birth - whether or not the records themselves legally valid?

The record may verify a “fact” (swear it’s true), but even if an amended BC has a sworn statement, the State does not grant that BC prima facie status. That’s what HRS 338-17 says. The claim is sworn, but the State of Hawaii does NOT verify that the claim is “on its face” evidence of the truth of the claim.

See there are two levels of verification - there is the applicant’s verification of a claim (”I swear it’s true, officer”) and then there is the verification by the government entity (”I hereby find you guilty of murder...”)

If a defendant “verifies” that they are innocent it’s a totally different thing than if the judge or jury signs a document declaring that a defendant is innocent. The defendant’s “verification” is a claim whose accuracy has to be determined. The verdict is the government’s determination of whether the claim is accurate.

The documents “verify” Obama’s Hawaii birth just like OJ Simpson’s affidavits and sworn testimony “verified” his whereabouts and involvement in his wife’s murder. He swore that he told the truth. The LEGAL STATUS of the claim depended on what the judge and/or jury verified as true.

Fukino has never, ever said that the State of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth facts. She has never once been willing to either say or show the LEGAL STATUS of Obama’s birth certificate at all - even though required by law to do so to ANYBODY WHO ASKS TO SEE A NON-CERTIFIED ABBREVIATED BC.

I made requests to see Obama’s records stored in the late birth index, Hawaiian Birth Certificate index, no records index, and pending index - all of which are real indices that they look in when they try to find a person’s BC to fulfill that person’s request, according to the “For Office Use Only” portion of the request form. I received back a Glomarized response - IOW they are claiming that the legal status is a PROTECTED DISCLOSURE. They don’t have to - and won’t - reveal the legal status of the birth certificate. So when they claim they have a birth certificate for Obama they refuse to say whether that is a pending, late, COHB, or legally valid BC. They’re claiming the legal status of the BC - whether the State of Hawaii has verified the truthfulness of the BC claims - is a SECRET.

Why is that? And if they have to say the same thing for a piece of toilet paper with a name scratched on it that’s in a “pending file” somewhere as they would say for a legally-valid BC, then why should we believe their statement of having a BC or that Obama is in the index data means anything more than a piece of toilet paper with his name scratched on it?

When did Okubo say there were no amended records in the birth index for Obama? If she truly said that then she is contradicting her own Glomarized responses to me, in which she said she COULDN’T REVEAL THAT.

I appreciate that and don’t expect or ask you to change that for me or anybody else.

What I would say regarding Okubo’s statements carrying weight because she is the official spokesman is that her statements have so many inconsistencies that if she was put on the stand nobody in the courtroom would consider her a credible witness. So why does her being a government employee make her MORE credible?

The thing I have seen to an excruciating extent is that I could expect a bum off the street to be more honest with me than I have found anybody but a few rare exceptions to be in these government agencies. We are screwed if we have to believe people who break rules and laws as easily as they breathe.

You might say that’s a generalization and presumption. Maybe it is. But I say that after literally thousands of hours digging up proof in order to sort out every little dribble that poops out of Okubo’s mouth (or wherever it drips from). She can say one little drip and I have to spend hundreds of hours sorting out whether or not she’s pulling crap out of thin air - and ultimately find out that she’s full of BS.

But at the end of the day the hundreds of hours I’ve spent on every stinkin’ thing she says means nothing because she has a “Communications Director” title attached to her drivel-filled e-mails.

I don’t intend to whine; it’s my choice to do this. It’s just hard to bite the bullet when I know the extent of the runaround that I’ve been given and the ways that the laws and rules are being broken and/or obfuscated and realize that because I’m a peon I will never be able to overcome the automatic prejudice in favor of a government employee.

I’ve seen the polls where most people would trust a random drawing of names from the phone book more than they would trust Congress. A random person has less motive to lie. The people who answer the poll that way understand the current government, media, and law enforcement landscape really well. I’ve learned that the hard way. A year ago I didn’t think any government worker would have the audacity to tell an outright lie. Let’s just say I had a steep learning curve and I’ve learned my lesson well by now.

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.