Posted on 02/01/2012 1:47:55 PM PST by Music Producer
He is a fool who rejects the facts simply because he does not like them.
Where the law concerning birth certificates from the State of Hawaii are concerned, it is certainly disheartening to see so many people within our movement play the part of utter dunderheads. Because we so want to believe that there is some legal maneuver that will grant an attorney license to walk into the Department of Health in Honolulu and inspect whatever may or may not exist pertaining to Barack Obama, we are easy prey for the deceptive legal claptrap of a narcissistic attorney, and the online sources that echo those snake-oil sales pitches.
The facts are really not all that hard to understand, but first, one must be willing to set aside his preconceived notions about what those facts are (the notions that have been used as an insidious ploy to raise money), and approach those facts honestly. Having previously tried to relay those facts, only for them to be ignored by some, please allow me to present them in a different way that might make them a bit easier for those who appear to be willfully ignorant.
1. Barack Obama has no legal authority to give access to any original documents possessed by the Department of Health in Hawaii.
The State of Hawaii is the owner of all Hawaiian records of vital statistics. The Hawaiian Department of Health is the keeper of those records. Barack Obama has no authority over that which he does not own. Once issued a “certified copy” of any such record, the recipient is free to do whatever he would like with THAT document, but that has no bearing upon any original document the certified copy represents, as that is owned by the state, and not by the person named on the document.
Furthermore, a photocopy of the certified copy being sent to a judge in Georgia does not produce a legally valid reason for inspection of an original possessed by Hawaii. At most, the Georgia judge could request to see the certified copy from which the photocopy was made. Legally, that would be the extent of the judge's authority.
2. State courts have no legal authority to give access to any original documents possessed by the Department of Health in Hawaii.
Hawaii law (H.R.S. 338-18) prohibits access to, or inspection of, any birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a direct and tangible interest (generally, immediate family members). No subpoena or Motion to Produce from any other state regarding original documents possessed by Hawaii will ever be enforceable, as providing such would be against Hawaii law. No state court has the power or jurisdiction to force a Hawaiian court to do something that would be against Hawaii law.
3. A certified copy of a birth certificate is legally considered an original.
Article IV of the Constitution (the Full Faith & Credit Clause) requires every state to consider documents certified as valid from every other state to be valid. In regards to birth certificates, a certified copy (with raised seal) must be viewed as equal in authority and validity as the original.
So, what will you do with your newly acquired knowledge? Will you continue to allow yourself to be whipped into a mouth-breathing frenzy because some internet headline states that a judge has given a lawyer a “green light” to obtain legally protected documents in Hawaii? Or, will you stop and think about the validity of those headlines in light of the law?
Here's the equivalent of the so-called “green light” that Judge Malihi gave: imagine that you walk across the street from your house, and you ask that neighbor for permission to request that your next-door neighbor defy the law of gravity and levitate. Knowing that he has no authority to stop you from requesting something of your next-door neighbor (regardless of your next-door neighbor's ability to honor your request), I'm thinking his response would probably be, “Sure, go ahead.”
That's the extent of Judge Malihi's “green light.” He doesn't possess the legal authority to stop any such request from being made to the Superior Court. But, here's yet another accurate prediction: the Superior Court won't even try to “levitate,” as it will understand that there are laws that prevent such an action.
If everyone in our movement could at least act like he comprehends these very simple laws, we might actually make some progress toward resolution. As long as we continue to behave like moths drawn to a counterfeit light of deceptive lunacy, we will all be viewed as nutwhacks by association—and that's what the media continues to do by focusing on the “grifter element” of our cause. As much as we really want for those baseless headlines to be true, they are not; so, if you continue to fall for them, not only is it your fault (because you've now been shown the truth), you are ultimately helping to destroy the very movement you claim to support.
As much as we all might wish that someone could walk into the Department of Health and be given access to inspect whatever documents may exist there, it would plainly be against the law for the DOH to allow such access. How can we be a movement that proclaims to embrace the law, and demands that the law be upheld, and yet at the same time, support nonsensical efforts to thwart the law? Something is very wrong with that picture.
Not until we have a brilliant attorney who can construct an argument against the Department of Health in Hawaii that, somehow, would allow that access within the law, will that ever happen. So far, such an argument has not even remotely been made. And, it could be, there is possibly no such argument that could ever be made. For that answer, you'll have to ask someone other than an “unemployed musician” (LOL!). If I were a lawyer, and there were an “unemployed musician” who knew the law better than I, I certainly wouldn't publicly call him an “unemployed musician.” But, that's just me. Whether we're called “bloggers” or “unemployed musicians” does not change who better understands these laws. You can take that to the bank!
The good news is, there ARE some legitimate actions underway—actions that are being cultivated within the constraints of the law. If you truly want to see us move forward in these eligibility issues, I strongly recommend that you focus on http://riseupforamerica.com/ and http://libertylegalfoundation.org/.
And, as always, Article2SuperPAC remains a resource committed to furthering our cause through education and underwriting. Visit them regularly at http://www.art2superpac.com/.
As you can probably imagine, my inbox continues to be slammed because of my recent articles. While the vast majority of what I receive is wholly supportive, there is still the occasional “not-so-supportive” message. Please be aware that, as I have previously stated, emails that simply attack me or praise incompetence, but do not address the actual facts, will not only be ignored, they will demonstrate the sender's unwillingness to learn the truth, and a lack of moral integrity by a support of, and association with, something that is ethically indefensible.
I will continue to share the truth the best I can. Just remember this: while the truth will inevitably set you free, it will likely piss you off first. Just do me a favor, get over your pissed-offedness and engage of few synapses to understand what the law really says, and how that law doesn't actually square with the seemingly endless deceptive tripe, before sending me any more emails.
###
If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.
I’ve always figured if Baraq was truly ineligible, the Clinton’s renowned private detective operation would have found it.
The state owns ALL birth certificates. A brother has a direct and tangible interest, as defined by statute.
The state of Hawaii no longer releases photocopies of original birth certificates. That issue is at the heart of Sunahara v. DOH.
3. A certified copy of a birth certificate is legally considered an original.The "full faith and credit" shown to the documents provided by the officials of other states does not always apply in cases of fraud.Article IV of the Constitution (the Full Faith & Credit Clause) requires every state to consider documents certified as valid from every other state to be valid. In regards to birth certificates, a certified copy (with raised seal) must be viewed as equal in authority and validity as the original.
It's a dicey area of law, iirc. But there it is.
This site knows about Orly. Shes the one who carried the banner from the beginning. Orly is our Joan and we will not throw her to the wolves.
Orly is the Vogon Poet of law.
The Ultra Hussein Head is the only one to spout ANYTHING about proceedings in Georgia today?!
Especially because I have heard Mr. Trump commenting on his own people's investigation -- he wonders why there is no record that the mother was ever a patient at any or the hospitals named as the birth hospital.
Though I am sure that there are people claiming that records do exist, perhaps citing that White House letter to one of the hospitals .. so who do I believe. For me, it's Trump.
Thanks again.
contumely n 1. Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence. 2. An insolent or arrogant remark or act. Will you continue to allow yourself to be whipped into a mouth-breathing frenzy . . . .
“Orly is our Joan and we will not throw her to the wolves.”
Of course not.
Joan of Arc was burned, not thrown to wolves.
She was thrown to the wolves before she was burned.
"Let's go further -- Keep going quickly, move, down, down, down, down. Keep going, keep going, keep going. More, more, more. Yes, stop. Keep going, keep going -- higher -- no, down, down little bit. No, up, up, go up. Stop, down, down – I apologize. Up -- go down. Just one second, please. More, more, more, more, more. Stop, stop. Hokay, little bit lower, little bit lower, little bit lower. .... Go a little bit higher -- no, down. Hokay. No, no, down, down, down. No. Stop, stop, stop. Keep going, keep going. Let meee feeeenish...Now -- stop." Orly Taitz, ESQ.
"That's what she said." Michael Scott, Dunder-Mifflin
"I'll have what she's having." Meathead's Mom
“Orly is the Vogon Poet of law.”
Ha!
LET US ENTERTAIN YOU: HASKINS AND BOOTH
Orly is our Boudicca and will not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Well, no point in arguing with you, but I think you would be better advised to pursue your own path and let others pursue theirs. The judge in the case took evidence from three different parties, and it will have done no harm to put as much on the record as possible, since Obama decided it would be inadvisable to send a lawyer to argue the case.
The opposition will make fun of “birthers” no matter what is said. The facts are irrelevant to them and their loyal sycophants. That’s why we have comedians as trusted “news” sources.
Only figuratively.
Music,
I quite agree that Orly’s “green light” should be taken with a grain of salt. I especially think so because as far as I can tell, Jablonski was clever enough to avoid to placing the purported Birth Cert image as an actual exhibit of evidence for the OSAH trial.
I am a bit confused though as to why you would bother working with Duncan Sunahara given what you seem to be saying here. I interpret your words to imply that whatever Hawaii says is real, is real and that no one has any recourse or means to prove otherwise.
If HDOH were to step forward in that case with a high-resolution color photocopy of an original birth certificate made with crayons and showing the attending physician to be Wyle E. Coyote, MD, my reading of what you say is that no court could force any sort of clarification, even if the Sunahara family could produce an authentic early copy from their own document vault that radically contradicts HDOH’s latest offering.
I probably misunderstand what you are saying, but in such a case, it sounds like you think that Hawaii could simply say, “We have no idea what that old-looking apparently forged document is, but we know that we have given him the correct copy accurately representing the authentic Crayon-made original that resides in our files.”
Cannot judicial fact-finding and investigative purposes trump document handling laws where fraud and other felonious deeds may come into play?
I don’t mean to say, “So, see you’re wronger than Orly!” I just mean to ask if you could clarify whether in your understanding of current Hawaii law, there is any way at all to overcome Fuddy and HDOH’s complicit participation in Obama’s fraud. Is it just that there isn’t enough evidence yet to justify a court order or a warrant for search/seizure? Or do you consider that there is no legal circumstance (short of amending Hawaii’s laws) in which the HDOH could be compelled to be held accountable for what they produce and claim as authentic?
Do know that regardless on my confusion on the above points, I do sincerely thank you for all the time and energy and money you have poured into this cause.
The facts are these: that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have spent a small fortune to prevent us from seeing a 10 dollar copy of his birth certificate, starting with the courtroom of R. Barclay Surrick in Philadelphia Pa before the last election. The Party reportedly has spent well over one million dollars to keep from laying out a 10 dollar copy of his birth certificate.
This would not be if he had a valid birth certificate. The fact is he does not. It couldn’t be any more simple. He does not have a birth certificate from the United States. After 5 years of this nonsense, you should also be convinced. If you are not, you are not paying attention. He assumed the office of the President of the United States while not being elligible under the Constitution of the United States. If he were, he would have shown it by now.
To the author...
Who do YOU mean by we?
You must have a mouse in your pocket or you are assuming you know me well enough to speak for me.
Save your breath.
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.