Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
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.
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.
To most normal people, Dr. Fukino’s July 27th media release was a definitive statement but there will always be those who will try to parse her words. That goes with the territory of being involved in a controversial issue.
If we were in the 4th grade, the key words are VERIFYING, BORN IN HAWAII and NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
She meant exactly what she said: that she had seen the original vital records (plural) which claim on oath that Obama was born in Hawaii.
She didn’t mean what she DIDN’T say: that she had seen the original vital records AND verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What she said is what the records claim. What she didn’t say is what she (or the State of Hawaii) claims - because HRS 338-17 doesn’t allow them to claim anything for an amended BC.
And don’t you dare call this “parsing words” because I went through big hassles with a long, drawn-out series of communications through which the HDOH claimed that the legal status of a birth certificate has to be kept secret. IOW, they CAN’T SAY WHETHER THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THEY HAVE FOR SOMEBODY IS A PIECE OF LEGAL DOO-DOO OR ACTUALLY LEGALLY VALID. They can’t (themselves) verify the accuracy of what is on a BC because that would indicate the legal status, and that has to be kept secret.
Does it make sense with anything? Heck no. Nothing they say makes sense with anything else they say or with the laws. It’s all just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
So this isn’t legal parsing; it is taking the HDOH at their own word. They SAY they can’t verify the legal status of a BC, so that obviously can’t be what Fukino did in her statement. Unless you consider the HDOH responses to me to be lies or mistaken - in which case, why believe anything they say?
Placemark.
(Thank you for your incredible grinding research, butterdezillion!)
You’re welcome. “Grinding” is the perfect word for how I feel right now - like I’m ground into tiny frazzled bits. lol. Time for bed.
"It absolutely confirms everything I've been saying for several months now, that the Democratic National Convention will reflect a very liberal, extreme-left viewpoint," Wadhams said. "By going with probably the most visible leftist in the nation, Nancy Pelosi, they are signaling precisely the kind of convention I am looking forward to." Read more: Pelosi tapped to chair Democratic convention - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/dnc/ci_6283384#ixzz0zDG5YyKN
I think there may be more to that also. I think it provided a distraction so that Cheney could break the rule by not even asking the question - which may be the most the Soros machine could get Cheney to do in the charade he was told he had to play.
The conservative leaders who are cited as going along with Obama’s placement as POTUS did not fuss and holler about the illegality of it - but just about every one of them had some anomaly so that they never publicly did what they were legally required to do either. Cheney is an example. It’s said that he went along with Obama’s placement because he didn’t fuss. But he also didn’t fulfill the legal requirement of calling for objections either. He (purposely, I believe) left out that legality. Pelosi’s public orgasm allowed Cheney’s defiance to go under the radar of most.
Chief Justice Roberts had the same kind of thing. There is no public footage to prove that Roberts ever gave the legally-required oath. It’s said he did it in private. This was perhaps a concession so that Roberts could be SAID to go along with the charade when he couldn’t stomach the illegality of actually doing it for real.
In similar fashion, Justice Stevens gave Biden the oath to be Vice President but when shaking Biden’s hand afterwards called him “Mr President”. Very possibly a public protest reflecting that Stevens knew Biden is the only one Constitutionally able to act as President.
Justice Alito pretended to Orly Taitz that he knew nothing about the eligibility lawsuits, though a later comment by Justice Thomas revealed that they DID know about the suits and were purposely evading them. Alito is neither stupid nor senile; he put on a front because he couldn’t stomach having the public believe they truly refused to hear the cases.
Thomas’ own comment - unsolicited, out of the blue, and very serious and uncomfortable to everybody until Thomas smiled so people could pretend it had been a joke - was a way of telling the public that SCOTUS was particularly evading the issue, which is dereliction of their legal responsibility that no real justice would ever joke about.
That’s 3 conservative justices, one liberal justice, and VP Cheney who publicly balked at the charade they were supposed to carry out - whose involvement in the charade is used to contend that Obama’s legitimacy was affirmed by these conservatives.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that these anomalies are deliberate red flags by these people, to show that they DIDN’T affirm Obama’s legitimacy. They had to go along with the charade - I believe because Soros and the Islamists threatened to create a panic that would destroy the capitalist world economy if their coup in America was halted.
What’s happening now is a Soros-Islamist-Obama nightmare, with the American people angered about the Ground Zero victory mosque, and people realizing that Obama - as he said himself to the Egyptian ambassador and as the Muslim world has claimed all along - “was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda” - the agenda of worldwide sharia which enslaves or executes all infidels, and the destruction of the US and Israel.
Their plan to sneak this coup quietly past an unsuspecting America is not working. It will be REALLY interesting to see whether they go the next step in communist coup fashion and create a critical crisis that allows them to declare martial law and use the military to crush all dissent. That is the typical communist strategy.
Janet Napolitano’s recent claim that a terrorist attack may be imminent could be the stage-setting for their next move. Somebody suggested that the Koran burning issue, while not good PR for the Islamists, could set the stage for Hezbollah and/or Hamas sleeper cells in the US to create the terroristic crisis Soros wants, in order to do this last step in the communist coup: martial law and military takeover. It appears that Ahmadinejad may have been sending LOTS of additional recruits our way via Venezuela and our southern border (which Obama refuses to protect and is suing to keep Arizona from protecting).
I guess we won’t know until we see. At this point nothing could surprise me.
What legal reasons would prevent the AG's office from answering questions about Obama's citizenship unless they have no authority (like Fukino) to make statements about anyone's citizenship??
She meant exactly what she said: that she had seen the original vital records (plural) which claim on oath that Obama was born in Hawaii.
She didn’t mean what she DIDN’T say: that she had seen the original vital records AND verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What she said is what the records claim. What she didn’t say is what she (or the State of Hawaii) claims - because HRS 338-17 doesn’t allow them to claim anything for an amended BC.
And don’t you dare call this “parsing words” because I went through big hassles with a long, drawn-out series of communications through which the HDOH claimed that the legal status of a birth certificate has to be kept secret. IOW, they CAN’T SAY WHETHER THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THEY HAVE FOR SOMEBODY IS A PIECE OF LEGAL DOO-DOO OR ACTUALLY LEGALLY VALID. They can’t (themselves) verify the accuracy of what is on a BC because that would indicate the legal status, and that has to be kept secret.
Does it make sense with anything? Heck no. Nothing they say makes sense with anything else they say or with the laws. It’s all just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
So this isn’t legal parsing; it is taking the HDOH at their own word. They SAY they can’t verify the legal status of a BC, so that obviously can’t be what Fukino did in her statement. Unless you consider the HDOH responses to me to be lies or mistaken - in which case, why believe anything they say?
As I said, there is no judge or justice in the United States who wouldn’t accept as definitive Dr. Fukino’s statement which is still available on the Hawaii Department of Health’s website in a section entitled “Responses to frequently asked questions related to all records and documents maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II.”
I fully understand that YOU don’t accept the Hawaii Department of Health’s statement as an official verification but Courts will and have most definitely seen it that way.
That’s one reason why in 73 adjudicated attempts or appeals, no Court has found Obama to be ineligible.
FYI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2587167/posts?page=9#9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2587167/posts?page=15#15
Anyone can renounce their US citizenship, even Soebarkah.
15 posted on Saturday, September 11, 2010 1:21:48 AM by SvenMagnussen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2587167/posts?page=20#20
That’s a false narrative to protect a usurper.
A minor can sign a contract, but it is unenforceable by the the contractor
(i.e. the contractor cannot repossess property or sue to enforce rights against the minor).
So, many people believe minor’s cannot enter into a contract. They can and they do.
But the contractor is exposed to loss if the minor does not choose to honor the contract.
In the case of a US citizenship renouncement, a minor must appear before US official and formally revoke their renouncement and swear an oath of allegiance to the US.
Once this is done, the minor recovers their US citizenship as a naturalized citizen and not a Natural born citizen.
Natural born citizens do not have to swear an oath of allegiance their country because the allegiance is considered to be naturally occurring.
20 posted on Saturday, September 11, 2010 1:45:30 AM by SvenMagnussen
***
Again, I haven’t a clue if Sven’s theory is correct.
But I do admire the way he argues his position at Obama Conspiracy.
I really am looking forward to the day when I do NOT post anymore about Obama’s eligibility.
The day:
Obama announces he will not seek reelection.
Enough states have “birther” bills.
Another candidate wins Democratic nomination for 2012.
That day cannot come soon enough.
What don’t you understand about “the vital records verifying”?
Fukino did not verify. She said the records verify. But the State of Hawaii says those records are not probative so it makes no difference what they “verify”. What they “verify” has as much legal status as a defendant’s oath that he didn’t kill anybody. Both instances are sworn statements “verifying” what a court actually has to sort through to make a finding of actual fact. They are sworn statements whose truthfulness has not yet been legally determined. That’s all.
You seem to be either incapable or unwilling to grasp what it means that Obama’s BC has been amended. How much time have you spent reading the actual Hawaii statutes? If you spend some time with those documents it eventually begins to sink in.
What don’t you understand about “the vital records verifying”?
Fukino did not verify. She said the records verify. But the State of Hawaii says those records are not probative so it makes no difference what they “verify”. What they “verify” has as much legal status as a defendant’s oath that he didn’t kill anybody. Both instances are sworn statements “verifying” what a court actually has to sort through to make a finding of actual fact. They are sworn statements whose truthfulness has not yet been legally determined. That’s all.
You seem to be either incapable or unwilling to grasp what it means that Obama’s BC has been amended. How much time have you spent reading the actual Hawaii statutes? If you spend some time with those documents it eventually begins to sink in.
At any time over the last two years any citizen, any reporter or any state legislator when Dr. Fukino has testified before the Hawai’i legislature could simply ask her that question: “Dr. Fukino, has President Obama’s birth certificate ever been amended?” To the best of my knowledge, the question hasn’t been publically asked.
I’ll conclude by quoting Dr. Fukino, yet again, from her testimony before the Hawai’i Senate Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations, February 23, 2010: “For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama HAS POSTED A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ON HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE. Hawai’i is a ‘closed records’ state, meaning that vital records are available only to those with a direct and tangible interest as defined by statute; hence, they are not subject to disclosure under public records requests.”—Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health, State of Hawai’i
You don’t get it. You’re claiming that Fukino said SHE VERIFIED Obama being born in Hawaii and being a “natural-born American citizen”.
Ask Buckeye Texan. The language is clear. She says the “original vital records” verify those things - not that she verifies them.
That’s basic comprehension. According to Bloom’s taxonomy we can go no further until we get the basic facts straight. No higher analysis can be done until we know exactly what Fukino claimed in that statement. Both Buckeye Texan and I read that statement and see Fukino saying that the RECORDS verify, not that Fukino verifies.
Tell me where you’re seeing Fukino saying that SHE verifies.
Furthermore, the question of whether Obama has an amended birth certificate HAS been asked. Just not by the person you wanted to ask it. It was asked by a persistent woman of integrity who wasn’t going to take crap for an answer and who had the sense to ask via OFFICIAL requests for records.
And the HDOH begrudgingly answered it by saying that they denied “Terri K” access to the records of Obama’s amendment.
It wasn’t asked by any reporters; maybe somebody should ask why in all this time it was NEVER asked by a reporter.
But it HAS been asked and answered. Just not the way you wanted it to be.
bttt
Furthermore, the question of whether Obama has an amended birth certificate HAS been asked. Just not by the person you wanted to ask it. It was asked by a persistent woman of integrity who wasn’t going to take crap for an answer and who had the sense to ask via OFFICIAL requests for records.
And the HDOH begrudgingly answered it by saying that they denied “Terri K” access to the records of Obama’s amendment.
It wasn’t asked by any reporters; maybe somebody should ask why in all this time it was NEVER asked by a reporter.
But it HAS been asked and answered. Just not the way you wanted it to be.
Dr. Fukino often holds press conferences to address health related issues and she testifies on health issues before committees and subcommittees of the Hawaii state legislature.
You don’t get it. You’re claiming that Fukino said SHE VERIFIED Obama being born in Hawaii and being a “natural-born American citizen”.
Ask Buckeye Texan. The language is clear. She says the “original vital records” verify those things - not that she verifies them.
That’s basic comprehension. According to Bloom’s taxonomy we can go no further until we get the basic facts straight. No higher analysis can be done until we know exactly what Fukino claimed in that statement. Both Buckeye Texan and I read that statement and see Fukino saying that the RECORDS verify, not that Fukino verifies.
Tell me where you’re seeing Fukino saying that SHE verifies.
One more time, we are discussing an official statement OF Dr. Chiyome Fukino and she is backing up HER statement with a reference to the vital records on file for Barack Obama.
The proof of what I am saying is found in the reactions of “birthers” to Dr. Fukino’s statement. I could easily post about twenty different critical articles in the conservative media blaming and attacking Dr. Fukino personally NOT THE VITAL RECORDS for declaring Obama to be a “natural born American citizen.” Here is a link to but one of many examples, from the “rightsideoflife.com” blog:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/07/28/certifigate-fukino-declares-natural-born-citizenship-radio-talkers-lose-jobs-on-eligibility/
It seems that everyone but you took the Fukino statement as originating from the brain, pen and mouth of Dr. Fukino.
If her official media release had said “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii Department of Health and these records have been amended. Barack Obama is NOT a natural born American citizen.” Would you have accepted those words as official inauthentification of the Obama presidency?
The official question and answer have been made public.
How would it make any difference whatsoever whether the question was asked publicly?
Let’s do our 10th-grade English diagramming of the sentence Fukino used. Take this part: “I, Dr Chiyome Fukino, have seen the original vital records”
What is the subject and what is the verb? What is the object of the verb?
Please click link to see images:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2587698/posts?page=25#25
To: Kaslin
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro signature on Aug 13, 1968 passport renewal making a declaration about a family member previously included on her passport:
Close up of declaration Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro signed off on:
Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) struck from his mother’s passport because he is Soebarkah, Indonesian National, 1968:
25 posted on Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:50:19 AM by SvenMagnussen (Soebarkah renounced his US Citizenship in 1968.)
VLet’s do our 10th-grade English diagramming of the sentence Fukino used. Take this part: “I, Dr Chiyome Fukino, have seen the original vital records”
What is the subject and what is the verb? What is the object of the verb?
But you’re wanting me to only diagram PART of a sentence and not the ENTIRE sentence? That wouldn’t be grammatically correct. My tenth grade English teacher would be upset.
Its a relatively complex sentence: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verfifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.”
Yes, I definitely want the records to provide the verification (after all, that’s why we keep records) and not just the personal opinion of Dr. Fukino. What I want from her is a statement of confirmation that the records do indeed provide that verification.
From her July 27, 2009 statement, I have what I wanted.
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.