The Alabama Supreme Court may be the beginning of the end of Obama’s house of cards

Coach is Right ^ | 10/8/13 | Tommy Thompson

[Oldpuppymax]

What’s been the biggest challenge in challenging Obama’s eligibility in court? It’s been finding a judge who isn’t afraid to allow the merits of the case against Obama to be argued in court. The Alabama Supreme Court might just be different.

In an earlier case before the Alabama Supremes, Associate Judge, Tom Parker, stated “McInnish has attached certain documentation (Joe Arpaio’s investigation) to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

Here we have a judge who actually recognizes that the fake birth certificates are...

[Nero Germanicus]

Ha! :-)

[DiogenesLamp]

It is all sideshow. This should have been dirt simple. Hawaiian privacy law restricts access to birth certificates with an exception for legitimate purpose. All it should have taken is for one Secretary of State to file a formal request for a raised seal birth certificate with the appropriate Hawaiian authority with the express purpose of certifying qualifications for the Office of President before placing his name on the ballot. Then, when denied, file the appropriate challenges in Hawaiian court.

Alas, the time to do so is past as Øbama will not appear on another ballot.

I've said this from the very beginning. 50 State election officials were incompetent in the performance of their duties. There should have been 50 requests for proof from various state election officials. They dropped the ball. Twice.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where does the Constitution say that courts sit in judgment on the eligibility of the President.

Unh uh. You can't break out "Eligibility of the President" from the normal Duties of the courts in administering the Constitutionality of our laws.

If the court has no power to rule on the Constitutional requirements for Eligibility, they have no power to rule on any constitutional issue. Whatever their source of power for Ruling on the constitutionality of other issues, it likewise encompasses the constitutional requirements of Presidential eligibility.

They just don't want to do it, and they happen to have the power to say "Let this cup pass before me."

[Nero Germanicus]

Secretaries of State do not qualify under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b) for receiving a copy of a birth certificate. That is why in 2012 both the Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State requested and received “Certified Letters of Verification in a Lieu of Certificate” (under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3) from the Hawai’i state Registrar which those two Republican Secretaries of State used to approve Obama for their states’ ballots.
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2011/division1/title19/chapter338/338-14-3/

If any Secretary of State had wanted to receive or inspect an actual copy of the birth certificate, they would have needed to get a court order for it from “a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction” in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) (point 9).

In 2012 there were 50 different eligibility challenges to Obama’s credentials heard in 22 states by courts and state election boards. No court or state election board ruled him to be ineligible.

There is no state that has a law requiring a birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. Arizona’s legislature passed such a statute but Governor Brewer vetoed it.

Most states do not have statutes requiring Chief Elections Officials such as Secretaries of State to verify eligibility. In many states if a political party certifies a candidate as eligible, they are automatically placed on the ballot and then it is up to the opposing candidates to challenge an opponent’s credentials. Only one opposing candidate ever challenged Obama’s credentials, American Independent Party candidate Allan Keyes. He lost his challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States in Keyes v. Bowen

[NonValueAdded]

Interestingly enough, 338.18 states someone with a common ancestor is deemed to have "a direct and tangible interest" (338-18(b)(5)).

Will Milton Wolf please pick up the screaming red courtesy phone?

[Shadowstrike]

quit gettin my hopes up.

[Exmil_UK]

>>>>If any Secretary of State had wanted to receive or inspect an actual copy of the birth certificate, they would have needed to get a court order for it from “a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction” in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) (point 9).<<<<

Exactly why a Mandamus from the Alabama supreme court must *not* refer the SOS back to the court where the appeal initiated from, if it is to have teeth. Its possible the court will punt because of this.

That way if subpoenas are issued by the court, they are issued by a higher court, i.e. supreme court of Alabama, so that the usual suspects in Hawaii cannot deflect the matter with their usual hocus pocus bull.

The lower court would just perform the usual confidence trickery of bogus precedent and miss reading law, then probably go off and ask for another non-verifying verification from a shadow of a Hawaii state DOH Registrar.

[Nero Germanicus]

A Writ of Mandamus issued in Alabama would only compel action by Alabama’s Secretary of State or the lower court in Alabama where this lawsuit originated. How Hawaii would then respond is anyone’s guess.
MY guess is that the Hawaii Registrar would work with the Alabama Secretary of State to craft a remedy that is consistent with the provisions of Hawaii statutes yet meets the requirements of the Writ of Mandamus in Alabama.
That is what happened in responding to eligibility documentation requests from the Secretaries of State in Arizona and in Kansas.

[Exmil_UK]

Q. does a state supreme court from state A have the Authority to subpoena a certified vital record from another state, B, if it is part of the core evidence in a legal case involving the performance of a state official of state A in his duty, as ordered by Mandamus from the court of state A?

If this was a certified vital record for a normal citizen that would be granted immediately surely?

[Nero Germanicus]

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/87093079

[Political Junkie Too]

This should have been dirt simple. Hawaiian privacy law restricts access to birth certificates with an exception for legitimate purpose. All it should have taken is for one Secretary of State to file a formal request for a raised seal birth certificate with the appropriate Hawaiian authority with the express purpose of certifying qualifications for the Office of President before placing his name on the ballot. Then, when denied, file the appropriate challenges in Hawaiian court.

Arizona tried to test the Article IV "full faith and credit" access to prove public records, but they didn't push it far enough.

Article IV

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

---

"Manner in which such... records... shall be proved" is the name of the game. Not someone's verbal say so, but inter-state proof according to the Constitution.

-PJ

[kitchen]

I hate to tell people but as long as one parent was a US citizen, he could have been born in Zimbabwe but he’s still considered a US citizen.

Without a valid birth certificate how do you conclude he has one citizen parent?

[Scooter100]

The Alabama Supreme Court may be the beginning of the end of Obama’s house of cards

No, it won't. Like the hundreds preceding it, it will get nowhere. You don't know how much it pains me to say that, but it's true.

[Scooter100]

One look at the typewriter alignment and spacings tells me it is a poor hoax. I mean, come on. Three different lines for his birth date alone. For horizontal alignment, look at his birth year versus "Oahu" below.

Fake

[4Zoltan]

I have some questions.

Compare the typewriter alignment and spacing for the Nordyke twins birth certificates.

Link to Honolulu Advertiser image.

Why on both of these BCs is the last name "NORDYKE" higher up in the box than the first names "SUSAN" or "GRETCHEN"?

Would you say that the certificates were crooked when placed in the typewriter?

How about the gap between the "i" and the "ty" in "Maternity" in box 6c?

What would you say about the vertical alignment between the three boxes - 9. Race of Father; 12b Kind of Business or Industry; 14. Race of Mother?

Why for those three entries on Susan's do the entries appear to align vertically but not for Gretchen's?

Why don't the entries in box 7a "Honolulu" line up with the entries in box 7d "2013 Kakela Drive" in the same way for the two certificates?

Why did Susan's mother reside in Honolulu, Oahu but Gretchen's reside in Honolulu, Hawaii?

Why in box 12a does the entry "Doctor" appear in two different positions on the two certificates?

Thanks for your answers.

[CodeToad]

“typewriter alignment”?

Define that, specifically. Have you ever used a typewriter?

[fabian]

Not so fast..all of his decisions in office will be null and void if he illegally obtained that office, which se know he did.

[MMaschin]

The fact that Obama will not be on a future ballot is irrelevant to the case. The court can go forward and decide the case to establish future precedent, because the situation may occur in the future. This is the moot issue. A case that is usually cited to get around mootness is Roe v Wade. By the time that case was heard, the plaintiff was no longer pregnant, but the court heard it anyway, to establish future precedent. The same applies here, the court will decided the case so that there is precedent in case the situation occurs again in the future.

[GregNH]

Electoral College Questions

From that page the first question is;

Question:

What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?

Answer:

If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.

Then further down on that page is another question.

Question:

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

Answer:

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

In light of this answer I emailed the contact for that page the following.

From: Greg XXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:23 PM
To: 'electoral_college@nara.gov'
Subject: US Code 3

On this page "Previous Questions of The Week." here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

There are two questions I would like to address, the First one is "What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?" And the answer is correct as it states the process described in the 20th amendment and US Code 3 Sec 19. US Code 3 describes the process of counting the electoral vote for President and Vice President during a joint session of congress.

Then a subsequent question "Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?" That answer is not very specific. You mention the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives but go on to state it is a states issue. Well in section 11 we see the first mention of the Archivist. But there are three other copies of the certificates, one set being delivered to the President of the Senate. Then is section 15 we see that two tellers from each house previously selected and are handed the certificates for opening and are dealt with in an alphabetical order. It goes on to explain and clarify the counting process.

The word qualify does not appear until section 19 when it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?

[GregNH]

I have yet to receive an answer to the above, but of course there is a gov shutdown....