Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury,the Witness presumably did not understand the question. We are not INTERESTED in what you think a Judge will do. We are interested in knowing if *YOU* believe that a State Law should triumph in covering up a lack of ARTICLE II eligibility? This is a question of *YOUR* intellectual honesty, not whether courts can go through motions.
This is a yes or no question. Do you believe state privacy laws should be allowed to permit an individual to skirt Article II compliance?
No, I definitely do not believe that state privacy laws ever should be allowed to permit an individual to skirt Article II compliance.
However your attempt at posing a false choice fallacy is irrelevant since state privacy laws and Article II, Section 1 compliance can clearly go hand in hand under existing Hawaii statutes.
Now let me pose a question to you.
Who is it that you think should decide whether a state’s privacy laws are indeed permitting an individual to skirt Article II compliance?
Good, then we can be on the same side. That is a Rubicon as far as i'm concerned.
However your attempt at posing a false choice fallacy is irrelevant since state privacy laws and Article II, Section 1 compliance can clearly go hand in hand under existing Hawaii statutes.
Assuming that complaints got a fair hearing. That isn't happening. The Issue keeps getting brushed aside with insincere assurances. Tricks keep getting played, and participants keep hiding behind lawyer arguments. They are not engaged in forthrightness, but in coverup and obfuscation. Everyone is willing to let the law work, but it is not working.
Now let me pose a question to you. Who is it that you think should decide whether a state’s privacy laws are indeed permitting an individual to skirt Article II compliance?
Firstly, the Person in charge of the Records in Question. They should certify unambiguously the truth in a legally and morally accountable way. Secondly, the Election Officials of every state should require affirmative scrutiny of all claims of eligibility, especially in the event of questions regarding it. Thirdly it should be the Voters, Fourthly it should be the Electors, fifthly it should be the Congress, Sixthly it should be the Chief Justice, and Seventhly, it should be an aroused populace.
The problem is not a D@mned one of these people did their job. Not a one of them said to Obama "I'm sorry, but this is not good enough. We need to see actual proof of your eligibility." Every one of them took a "What? Me worry?" Attitude. We just let a virus into our system due to a defective firewall.