Posted on 04/16/2013 9:21:37 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court will hear oral argument regarding both California Defendants’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on April 22, 2013 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 7. The Court will allot each party--Plaintiffs, California Defendants, and Federal Defendants--a maximum of 30 minutes of oral argument. Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants. No witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted or considered at the hearing. Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF No. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss. A new hearing date will be set for said motion if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.
That’s not a judge’s job. Law enforcement agencies make referrals of criminal activity to prosecutors. Prosecuting attorneys then convene grand juries who issue indictments.
That’s not a judge’s job. Law enforcement agencies make referrals of criminal activity to prosecutors. Prosecuting attorneys then convene grand juries who issue indictments.
Onaka again tells us that the WH COLB PDF is not a true and correct copy. It is certified as a "true copy or abstract". Onaka is telling us the WH COLB PDF is an abstract which omits information.
That’s not a judge’s job. Law enforcement agencies make referrals of criminal activity to prosecutors. Prosecuting attorneys then convene grand juries who issue indictments.
The Hawaii State Registrar’s letters of verification comply with Hawaii statutes and with Federal Rule of Evidence 1005 which states:
RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has COMPARED it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Onaka has indicated the WH COLB PDF is correct but not complete. This is the issue.
| Data Point | On Abstract | On Original |
| 1 | Y | Y |
| 2 | Y | Y |
| 3 | Y | Y |
| 4 | Y | |
| 5 | Y | Y |
| 6 | Y |
By omission an abstract may correctly "match" but be incomplete.
They have for others, as in this story: http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/105347/
Dr. Onaka did not verify Obama’s abstract (which is a short form Certification of Live Birth). He verified the copy of Obama’s long form Certificate of Live Birth.
An abstract is a short version of something more detailed.
The ONLY data points on a birth certificate that are relevant to presidential eligibility are date of birth (must be age 35 or above) and place of birth to establish natural born citizenship).
The point is: HIDOH has never certified a true and correct copy of Obama’s COLB.
They have issued cleverly worded certifications that original records were used to verify info. There has never been an attestation of a true and correct copy.
The DOH appears to have changed the wording of the certification on their BCs prior to 1995.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/
Good luck to the dear woman on this one.
a federal judge did not dismiss an Orly Taitz case without a hearing.
The man is a saint.
His plan is victory in 14 and consolidation of the Socialist Revolution, with a hand-off to a like-minded successor. The rest is distraction... and he's running it.
What the Hawaiians have take great pains to say is that the WH BC "matches data on file" in their archives. It is entirely possible that the Hawaii DOH passed along digital records. The BC released by the WH looks suspiciously as it it were cobbled together from these digital files to LOOK like an actual BC "document.". That's all (as it it weren't enough) the BC case is about.
Let's say the Cold Case Posse has it all wrong. That does not mean this is not a valid question. Someone ought to take a look.
The issue of whether the Obama birth certificate is valid and authentic or invalid and forged is being looked at and it has been looked at.
A federal judge in Mississippi has two copies of the whitehouse.gov image of the Obama long form along with a Hawaii Letter of Verification at this time.
One of the copies was submitted by Orly Taitz in support of her position that the birth certificate is invalid and a forgery. The other copy and the Letter of Verification was submitted to US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate by the defense attorneys representing the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committe, Obama, officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, Nancy Pelosi and other named defendants in order to prove that Obama is eligible.
We are all waiting for Judge Wingate to rule on Taitz, et.al. v. Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, et. al.. We’ve been waiting for a year now.
What has always astounded me is that with allegations of forgery, fraud and document tampering going back to 2008, there has never been a FORMAL criminal investigation or a congressional investigation into those alleged crimes.
The Maricopa Cold Case Posse is a volunteer organization not a statutory law enforcement agency. Their work will still need to be submitted to a prosecuting attorney for a grand jury investigation into the allegations.
Absolootamundo. In fact, to my skeptical soul, the major factor lending an aura of invincible credibility to the Posse is the indisputable fact that they are being stymied, harassed, obstructed, lied to, misdirected, and severely bullshiited at every step in their long and tortured path.
I might be led to believe that Team Obama is afraid of this much more than they are afraid of the Article II ineligibility, which of course with only a half-term to go is rather moot. He is POTUS. He was ineligible to run. But that's over. This forgery case is not. Not by a long shot.
Every town village and hamlet has a title company. Every title company has a whole bunch'o'people who know the difference between a Title Deed and and an Abstract of Title.
As far as HI goes, I hope one of their dog licenses has more credibility behind it than their birth certificate procedures. In the 60's you could get a BC by having Grandma and a pal swear that you were "born at home," with no attending physician! True enough, except "home" was in Samoa, Hong Kong, The Phillipines, etc., and the birth took place 13 years earlier!
The hearing was this morning. According to ObamaReleaseYourRecord (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/california-judge-morrison-england.html) the judge dismissed the lawsuit.
Thanks for the ping that the case was diamissed. It will be interesting to see which of the arguments against a trial on the merits prevailed for this judge in his dismissal order. There are probably several.
Like each of the judge's children, for example...
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.
