Click the Pic
End Freepathons!
Sheesh!! Do It Now!
Donate today
SIR! MONTHLY, SIR!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/15/2012 5:01:45 PM PST by butterdezillion
The Congressional Research Service says that the individual states are in control of choosing their own presidential electors. So presidential eligibility issues are under the jurisdiction of state courts. But according to http://interstatedeposition.com/compellingout-of-statewitness.htm one state can't issue a subpoena for something in another state; they have to get somebody local in the other state to issue a subpoena and then that subpoena will be processed by the state where the records reside. If they refuse to issue or honor the subpoena then the other state is fresh out of luck.
We've already seen that Hawaii will ALWAYS hide the truth about Obama's records, even when it involves clearly breaking their laws and rules. They will never agree to any subpoena for their records.
IOW, the only way we will ever get access to those records for ballot purposes is if a bunch of state SOS's refuse to put Obama's name on the ballot unless and until those records are provided. If Obama wants to be on the ballots he needs to figure out a way to get the HDOH to provide the original birth certificate and the microfilm on which the original BC is filmed.
Is that what GA Judge Malihi said - that if Obama wants to be on the ballot those things have to be provided? Did Orly just copy pre-printed forms that had Malihi's signature, or did he actually require that those records be provided before Obama can be on the ballot?
Also, law enforcement people - is one state's law enforcement in the same predicament if they want a search warrant, subpoena, or deposition from something/somebody in Hawaii? Eric Holder is obviously never going to let federal law enforcement investigate Obama's many crimes including forgery and perjury. Are the feds the only people who COULD force Hawaii to submit to a criminal investigation?
Somebody help me understand exactly what boat we're in right now. As far as I can see from here, it seems like if both Hawaii and the US AG are willing to provide legal sanctuary for criminals the only recourse for the rest of us is impeachment of the US AG. Am I understanding this right? What protections do the rest of the states have against a rogue, criminal state that will hide criminals?
Thanks for any help anybody can give!
One of the reasons the Left wants to go up against Romney. They know Obama is still vulnerable on the NBC/DC issue.
Roberts was compromised from the first moment he let Obama into his chambers with other justices (Photo is on FR) and let Obama be the apparent chair of the gathering. I believe, but could be wrong, that this cozy ‘one-with all’ get together was before the election and there were some court actions against Obama’s eligibility. Justices top down have much to explain as to oath to defend the Constitution when the dust settles from this debacle.
Duncan Sunahara Interview 10-31-2011.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clmtb6vmeBs&feature=player_embedded
I have been operating under the assumption that Roberts simply doesn't understand the issue very well. Who does that hasn't researched it?
That may be correct, but it will get lost in the fact that his attorney took a contrary position in federal court.
In a footnote to his January 2, 2009 Motion to Dismiss the case brought by Gregory S. Hollister, Obama attorney Bauer informed the court that “President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born...in HI.” Bauer referred the court to factcheck.org as concluding the certificate was genuine and urged the court to take judicial notice of the fact based on “these public records”.
It seemed ridiculous at the time that this information was deemed to have no evidentiary value, or to not support futher action by plaintiff.
See http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/9/0.swf
Oooooookkkaaaaayyyyyyy.....
Nobody is claiming the PDF is from 1961. Obama, rather than presenting a physical copy of the alleged birth certificate at a press conference, posted a PDF on the White House website and printed out copies of the PDF to give to the press. One and only one reporter (Savannah Guthrie) claims to have seen an original copy of the certificate and that she “felt a raised seal” yet there’s no indication she did any research to see if that seal actually matches the description of the official seal posted at HI DOH website. Visually, it does not match.
This is one of the biggest problems with Obama’s birth certificate. A real, authentic birth certificate is considered self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but rather than present a physical copy of the alleged document, his attorney only footnoted judicial notice to a website run by self-declared factcheckers who have no function as authenticators of legal documents. They might as well have admitted the alleged COLB was fake then and there.
My wife's home country is explicit about it. My daughter is a “Born Dual Citizen” for life.
My wife can apply to reinstate her own citizenship, but she would then be a “Dual Citizen” only. Her father was a dual citizen as well. He did the paperwork to reinstate immediately after naturalizing.
Our daughter is special, like Obama, a Born dual citizen.
If Obama stands, Democrats have amended the constitution to include dual citizens with foreign citizenship as NBC, like my daughter. There are many countries that allow it. So the clause has been neutralized.
One day, a man with his finger on the US Nuke button may be an Iranian citizen, raised in Iran, and born in America on his mothers vacation. Democrats will vote for the death of America. It's their nature.
The founders were aware that Kings and Queens in Europe from different countries married, and formed alliances between countries. They produced little dual citizen princes and Napoleons. Sending people to war for slaughter in acquired states was no big deal.
So we had protection against that for 200 years. No longer.
So far, all the games are being played out on Birth Certificate Field, so it all depends upon whether or not the Administrative Judge wants to bring it back to "Natural Born Citizen."
Team Obama is successfully holding to the position that :
(a) He is a Natural Born Citizen
(b) That's because he says he was born of an American Mother in Hawaii
(c) and that is proven by this document that Team Obama chooses to present, no matter how suspicious they may appear to be.
(d)Take it or leave it, or take us to court, whence ye shall be laughed out onto the streets.
Sheriff Joe has seen through the obvious ruse. (As have all of us.) It is painfully evident by now that there is either (1) no actual birth certificate on file, or
(2) What is on the mysterious document is to remain secret.
Ring-Ring. "Hello, Hawaii! Would you be so kind as to fax me a certified copy of the President's Birth Certificate? Hello? Hello? No. No. Not an abstract of the data you have on file. A copy of the actual Birth Certificate.... yea, you know, like a regular BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"
When Sheriff Joe makes that call, can Hawaii lawfully tell him no? That’s my question. If he asks to audit their complete vital records history for Obama - both computer records (complete with transaction logs, which is the only way to know what’s really happened to that electronic record) and paper records - can they lawfully refuse?
If he were to charge the HDOH and Obama both with forgery, perjury or misprision of forgery, and conspiracy to defraud the people of Arizona through perjurious election filings ... would he be able to subpoena the records and depose the witnesses to prove the crimes that were committed? Or would he be told that only Hawaii law enforcement or AG Holder’s feds can have access to the records that would prove the guilt or innocence of the accused?
That’s what I really, really want to know. Because if Hawaii officials can hide those records forever, then the United States has no way to protect itself from a STATE that is an enemy combatant. Harsh words, I know, but I can’t think of any clearer way to describe the situation in which we find ourselves.
His lawyers may claim all they wish in any court in the land, but they have given him, as any good lawyer in a bad cause would, plausible deniability. Obama has never been called as a witness (nor has he had to be). He has never perjured himself.
This is a monstrous cabal ... and the most effective ever staged in the entire history of the USA.
Is the Virginia S. case scheduled? I know it was just filed but it doesn’t seem to be an issue that would take years to settle. Keep us posted.
“Obama has NEVER personally claimed to be a Natural Born Citizen. His entire PERSONAL claim to constitutional legitimacy rests solely on his claim to have been born of an American mother in Hawaii. “
_________________________________________________________________________________
I believe to be on the ballot in NH he had to.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa655.htm
From the link above:
655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers.
I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.
II. I, _________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the ____ day of ____; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
When he signed an affidavit for Arizona saying he was legally qualified to be President, he perjured himself - if he knew he was was not born in the USA.
And if he has no legally-valid Hawaii birth certificate then he knew his whole life long that he was not born in the USA because he’s been using a birth certificate from somewhere else his whole life long. If that is the case then he has conspired to defraud the whole country and I believe is guilty of the capital crime of treason - if a non-citizen can commit treason against a country that isn’t even his own country. If he naturalized somewhere down the line then he would now be a US citizen (though never natural born) and there would be no question but that he is guilty of treason.
If he was born in the USA then he has plausible deniability, because he could claim he THOUGHT he was eligible as a dual citizen.
The Hawaii Democratic Party wouldn’t perjure themselves by claiming Obama was Constitutionally eligible. That suggests to me that they also knew he was not born in the USA, because it’s not perjury to say he’s eligible if they believe him to be so on the basis of their preferred Constitutional interpretation. But if they knew he wasn’t born in the USA and claimed he was Constitutionally eligible they would have DEFINITELY committed perjury.
Their refusal to certify eligibility also strongly suggests that they KNEW he was not born in the USA. If they had no idea where he was born and claimed that he was Constitutionally eligible they couldn’t be convicted of perjury because they could claim ignorance - that they THOUGHT he was born in the USA and thus eligible.
No matter how you slice it, the HDP’s refusal to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility spells big, big trouble for them because the only legal danger in them certifying Constitutional eligibility would be if a) he was not born in the USA and b) they knew it. They refused to certify him, and the only logical explanation is because they didn’t want to perjure themselves because they knew he was not born in the USA.
And if they knew it, he also had to know it.
That is an interesting post and a very good summary. Thanks for the ping.
Point taken and agreed to. In fact, it appears the best he has ventured so far is "native-born".
Of course, my #67 responded to a quite different point - Obama never claimed that what he posted online was his actual birth certificate - which you may or may not have said.
To pursue my point, clearly either or both the client or his attorney bear responsibility for the information in the footnote of the Motion to Dismiss. The material was not just an incidental reference, it went further and was a veiled, if not direct, attempt to request that the court take judicial notice of the information. That responsibility would include, among other things, the assertion that what was published on the internet was certified by HI>
In some high profile cases, the attorney might admit to be mistaken; that the information was his best information as to what he thought the client had said - so long as such was not likely to result in disbarment. That is not going to happen in this case, however, since the WH spokesman sometime later announced to the press "we" have already posted [the BC] on the internet. And then, of course, there was the later disclosure of what was essentially the same sort of document.
My money, which is quite a bit less than yours, says Obama wears the NBC assertion around his neck.
In any event, it is disappointing that the material in the footnote was not pursued by plaintiff. (This eerily reminds me of a post I made several years ago.)
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.