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!
Ooops, meant to say “Point taken and agreed to so long as one is not responsible for the actions of their agents.”
Absolutely. Hawaii can always claim that they have already done so. And it doesn't make any difference.
However if Sheriff Joe and Boys from AZ play their cards right, they would use NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as their stated reason for keeping him off their ballot.
It would then be Team Obama that must bring suit to be restored to the state ballot, not vice versa. Team Obama becomes the Plaintiff. It is then the Plaintiff's job to not only provide the Hawaii Birth Records, but more important to show how he fits the constitutional requirement for a "Natural Born Citizen.
He is swearing that he believes he is a natural born citizen by virtue of (1)The location of his birth and (2)the citizenship held by his mother.
In many ways, this is quite the perfect crime. There is no way we can prove that he knows any different.
My question goes way beyond just this ballot or this election. It gets at the very heart of law enforcement. If one state is willing to hide criminals who perpetrated crimes in another state, can any of the other states do anything about it? In a way it’s really the extradition thing. Can one state harbor criminals outside the reach of the law? How could that be called anything but a declaration of war against the other states? When other countries harbor terrorists we call them enemies and they are fair game for us to attack. How is it any different between states?
I don’t want to just keep Obama out of the White House. I want to see him receive the just penalty for his crimes. Him and everybody else who conspired with him to commit treason against the Constitution and this once-great nation.
If he amended his HI birth certificate to add a birthweight (or otherwise complete it) in late 2006 before he declared that he would run it would be proof that he decided to run KNOWING he had no valid HI birth certificate and that he had either been using a fake HI BC his whole life or else he had been using a BC from somewhere else his whole life.
And it’s always the coverup that gives things away. He knew he didn’t have any legally valid documentation, or he wouldn’t have fought every attempt to require him to show his documentation. The lies about his BC being burned in a fire that never happened... it was all a big cover-up that he wouldn’t have needed to do unless he knew darn good and well that he would be BUSTED if people knew the truth.
You have cut to the chase. There is ample historic precedent for one state harboring another state's criminals. It is a very murky area of the law, of which Team Obama is making excellent use.
You and I both know that Obama and his handlers have acted with "malice aforethought." Easy to know. Tough to prove, as quite a few groups and their attorneys, good and bad, have found out.
Butter, our only chance during the present Constitutional Crisis is that 1 (one) State Official empowered to safeguard his or her state's ballot, acts unilaterally and exercises the power given to the office by that state's constitution.
The only way to put the burden of proof on Team Obama is to cast them as the plaintiffs in the matter. That way, if a court rejected the case on "standing," etc., the ruling of the state's authority would remain and Obama would remain off the ballot in that state.
More important, Obama must not only have doubt cast upon his constitutional legitimacy, he must resoundingly lose the next election in those states (probably all of them!) in which he is permitted to remain on the ballot.
Perhaps after he is voted out of office, our SCOTUS will find the courage to review Article II and offer a definitive ruling that follows the traditional view.
At this moment, to repeat, there has to be one state official somewhere that says, "No. The man is not a Natural Born Citizen." One official, one courageous patriot, could collapse this absurd house of cards.
That’s definitely what needs to happen. If the GA judge is a set-up he’ll only ask for a paper copy of a BC, Hawaii will certify a copy of their forgery, and the judge will say Obama’s name has to be put on the ballot.
As long as the judiciary can be corrupted Obama wil make sure it is corrupted. That’s why there were specific measures we were going to amend the Nebraska eligibility bill to contain - specifically 1) allowing the public to view the documentation for eligibility; 2) allowing any person to challenge the SOS’s decision and/or whether the requirements of the law were met by the SOS; and 3) specific authorization for anybody who challenged eligibility to get an audit of the records offered (to see the computer and paper trail for that record, which the inspector general for HHS said is the only way to check the credibility of a vital record).
The reason for all that is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the way to hold both the SOS and the judge accountable is by allowing the PUBLIC to see what their decision is based on and to require further investigation in a COURT OF LAW if it is warranted (NOT a mere Commission where political hacks make a decision and nobody can do anything about it. Of course, we’ve seen plenty of judges that have acted as political hacks also...).
If there is a dispute between 2 states, doesn’t that move the case into the federal courts? Hawaii would have to honor a federal judge’s order or subpoena, wouldn’t they?
Dang. The murder of Judge John Roll a year ago (shortly after Abercrombie had expressed public dismay over the damage the only known eligibility bill - Arizona’s - could do to Obama) was a pre-emptive strike. He’s probably the only judge in the 9th Circuit that had both a brain and a soul, and his murder ensured he would be replaced by somebody of Obama’s choosing.
Just one other thing (for now anyway. lol): During the last election George Soros put special emphasis on trying to get corruptocrats elected as Secretaries of State. Do we know how he fared with that?
He knew where the next battle would be.
Unfortunately, Nebraska’s SOS is John Gale - who told me in 2008 that the media would never let an ineligible person get onto the ballot. When our officials are that naive and just plain stupid, the country is in big, big trouble. I hope every state in the country beats Nebraska on the quality of their SOS.
Did you notice the strategy of the Obama legal team in GA? They claimed that since the law didn’t specifically mention presidential candidates, the law requiring ALL candidates to be qualified for their position doesn’t include President. That’s the same trick they’re going to pull on the SOS’s. They’re going to say that if the law doesn’t specifically REQUIRE this or that document, then the SOS isn’t authorized to check that document.
To which argument I say, “Show me where Congress-critters are specifically authorized to wipe their behinds while Congress is in session. If it’s not specifically authorized, then they can’t do it. You want to live by that standard, fine! Let’s live by that standard! Anything not specifically enumerated as a power in the statutes is forbidden. If the statute doesn’t say you can open the door, you can’t open the door. If the statute doesn’t say you can wear pants and a shirt, you can’t wear pants and a shirt. Don’t even THINK about having a notebook in front of you to write on... etc ad nauseum.”
That’s the level of absurdity these Obama lawyers operate at. Lilliputians.
HI might refuse and ask THEIR courts to issue an injunction. They might send over the usual bunch of tripe. They might even ignore it.
The Admin Judge could then buck it up to the GA courts, whereupon the process would begin anew. Yes, it would wind up in a Federal Court, IF they agreed to hear it.
This could as Team Obama already knows, could take many years. Real world? State election officials are the lowest rung on the the political food chain. They tend to do as they are told by more establishment figures.
I am afraid that Team Obama has engineered a political "Perfect Storm." There is no legal "Magic Bullet." It is absolutely crucial for Obama to leave office, his legacy permanently tainted by the question of legitimacy. It is, I fervently pray, that the SCOTUS will visit the question.
It all comes back to exactly what you said then. We need a SOS who will do what’s right, regardless of what the establishment tells him/her to do. And the right thing to do is to keep him off the ballot unless and until he proves he is qualified. If Obama wants to take years doing the lawyerly piddles it shouldn’t be any skin off our backs; just leave him off the ballot.
Every state should do that. But in order for HI to not just certify a copy of a forgery and that being the end of the story, the state SOS’s need to be aware of the evidence of crimes by the State of Hawaii itself so that it is clear that the credibility of the Hawaii government is shot, and any claims they make thus need to be cross-examined by examining the original, the microfilm rolls, the computer transaction logs, depositions from people whose claims contradict the HDOH, etc.
Are there different courts for criminal trials than for civil trials? We all know the 9th Circus for their legislating from the bench. Do they also hear criminal cases, or just civil cases?
I am not a lawyer but the main federal discrimination statute is probably 42 U.S.C. 1981:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html
Viz.:
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
I believe states can be sued along with officials such as the Secretary of State in both their individual and official capacities.
I imagine Obama, were he to be able to use this, would seek to show that the manner in which his case has been handled differently from white candidates for president. He could go on and on about Chester Arthur and other white historical candidates who did not win but who were either not challenged or whose challenges were dismissed. If he does, though, I wonder where that leaves the original NBC criteria question. Does a person who is not necessarily qualified for a job to begin with have to demonstrate that he is qualified if he loses a judgment along the way to disqualification, and has to appeal? Which takes precedence, the qualification question or evidently ancillary question of discrimination? Can Obama cite the statute on appeal or must he file a suit, in which case, how does he establish standing to sue (that is, if he were to file a suit, how would he establish that he is qualified to run for president, and avoid a presumably certain dismissal motion for lack of standing himself, and would the Georgia SoS even consider not filing a dismissal motion based on lack of standing for whatever reasons, apparent or hidden)?
I don't think one has to be a lawyer to file an amici brief but it might be up to the court's discretion to accept such briefs, so it might help if a real lawyer were to file such a brief.
Standard disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, etc.
It kind of comes across as election tampering for Obama’s lawyers to file motions to quash subpoenas for an administrative hearing. The requested documents from Hawaii should theoretically support his eligibility, yet asking to quash the motions suggests Obama doesn’t believe he can prove he is eligible. Things that make you go ... Hmmmmmm.
Yes.
And especially after the judge just got done saying that they HAVE to prove his eligibility in order to get on the ballot. To refuse to let them see the documents that would prove his eligibility for no good reason INDEED smells fishy. They can’t even say that they’re fighting it because it’s a waste of time, an invasion of privacy, etc. - because the judge has said they HAVE to do it in order to get on the ballot.
What legitimate reason would they have for refusing to do that? It’s really the same question as that reporter was asking Jay Carney - what is the REASON for refusing to show educational records? “Just because I can” is the height of arrogance, especially for somebody who’s begging (or should be begging) the nation to trust him and vote for him.
Why should we trust a guy if he could easily put our doubts to rest but instead refuses just because he can?
And when there is real skin off his own back for refusing - such as denying Georgia voters the opportunity to vote for him because his name isn’t on the ballot - even if he would claim laziness or arrogance - the disenfranchisement of an entire state’s voters stinks bad enough that the whole nation should be asking what’s his problem. Because there OBVIOUSLY is a problem here.
When the eligibility thing came up I ignored it UNTIL Obama refused to show his proof in Phil Berg’s suit. There was no reason for him to do that and every reason in the world for him to quell the doubts before the election. That he refused was a LOUD statement of guilt.
In a Fox article after Obama produced the “long-form” forgery a White House official said off the record that Obama was “testy” about signing the consent form requesting a certified copy of his birth certificate. Why should Obama ever be “testy” about requesting the document he claims he posted? There is nothing on there to get testy about. When is any reporter going to ask why Obama would be “testy” about requesting that document?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. And Obama looks, walks, and quacks like a guy who knows the documents will prove he’s ineligible.
First time was a case where Zero's lawyer asked the court to take judicial notice of the "birth announcement" posted online. And went on to say the release of the birth certificate would be embarrassing
Second time was in the Terry Lakin trial. At his trial the presiding judge warned him not to ask for any Obama documents (birth certificate, etc.), for they might prove “embarrassing to the President.”
So tell me what is so embarrassing about his birth certificate? You know, the one he released as an electronic file on the internet claiming it be the LFBC.
Exactly. What reporter has ever asked him what he was so “embarrassed” about from that BC? Should have been the first words out of any real reporter’s lips.
And if Obama would try using the same reason for refusing to present his real documents to get on the GA ballot, it would be even more perplexing - because how could he be “embarrassed” by presenting a document he claimed the entire public has already seen?
I think the Obama team will probably wait to see what the judge is going to demand. If the judge only wants the BC they will trust that the forged one in the HDOH office will suffice and will jump on the chance to have his eligibility decided by a judge BEFORE the Cold Case Posse comes out with ther report. If the judge is smart and honest enough to require an audit of the HDOH’s documents Obama will balk, and his own guilt will be on bright display for all to see.
Orly’s job at the hearing is to show that the HDOH cannot be trusted. They are the ones who need to be on trial at this point, because they are the ones who have what they know to be a forgery in their files. They obviously don’t want to have to show it, or Obama wouldn’t have posted what he did. But it’s there in case they ever do have to show it. And as long as nobody looks at it too deeply or questions the integrity of the HDOH, it might pass as a decent forgery. That’s why Orly’s job right now is critical. She needs to pound home just how compromised the HDOH is and why an audit of the HDOH’s paper, computer, and microfilm records is absolutely necessary.
Those arguments ... ummm, excuses won't fly now. Obama released what he purports to be a long-form birth certificate, so there's no privacy issue. As far as a "waste of time" ... it's not a legal defense. If Obama is legit, this would forestall any future ballot challenges in other states. And second, isn't it just as much a waste of time for Obama's lawyers to FIGHT a routine administrative procedure by filing a motion to quash?? Even the Obots are going to have wake up and smell the fraud after this motion
Here's my guess from way back when...
I believe/know a very few things:
The CoLB that his campaign released is a forgery.
Someone risked jail time to forge this document.
It takes all of half an hour on the 'net, and about $25-$40 to have a legitimate certified copy of your own BC delivered within a week. (I know this because I just did that very thing last month)
Therefore, I conclude that there must be some compelling reason to falsify his BC.
The compelling reason that comes to mind is that the real document would kick him out of the running for being the most powerful man on earth.
From this I conclude that his true documentation shows one or more of the following truths:
• He was not born in the United States, and is therefore constitutionally unqualified for the job. This is a show stopper. There is no way to "fix" this or inoculate himself against this, or win over voters on this issue. It is the premier campaign killer issue.
Therefore, I regard this as the most probable explanation for the deceit.
All the other possible reasons are much lower grade:
• His BC shows that he's a bastard. Although this might be personally embarrassing, nobody cares, a goodly fraction of the electorate is in the same boat, or closely related to someone who is.
• His birth name isn't Barak Hussein Obama. So what? We already know his his name changed when he was adopted in Indonesia. People can and do change their names, it isn't a crime, or even particularly shady.
The only question it really raises is why did he chose a muslim name? That's rather easy to explain away - he took his genetic father's name. Who can argue with that? Especially when muslim names had some popularity among blacks who didn't know just how deeply involved muslims were in the slave trade.
• His real birth certificate lists his father’s race as something other than "African". This would be more of a problem. His whole campaign is founded on his being "the first black president" come January. Still not lethal to the campaign, but it would be awkward to 'splain away.
• There is something else embarrassing on his official BC.
Like what?
There could be nothing conceivably embarrassing about:
His time of birth
His birthday
His city of birth
His county of birth
His island of birth
His religion (Religion is not even listed!)
His mother's race
The date it was filed
A few things could be a slightly embarrassing:
The serial number? Maybe? Suppose it's really 151-1961-000666? Nope. It turned out to be 151-1961-010641
His father's name wasn't listed. Not terribly unlikely if he and Stanley Ann split up before he was born. No one cares.
His mother's maiden name. Suppose she really did use her Anna Toot drinkin' ID to get married? Would that really suffice as a reason for someone to risk jail time by falsifying his documents? More to the point, would it disqualify Barak? I don't think so. If anything it could be played for the sympathy vote, young naïve Stanley Ann trying to do her best in covering up the mistakes of her youth. Mother's maiden name listed as Anna Toot? Yawn.
That leaves the big enchilada:
His birth name. Was it really the noble and exotic Barak Hussein Obama II?
Or was it Mortimer Snerdly Toot, hmmmm?
Live that one down!
One other possibility, but it's so odd I hesitate to mention it:
Approximately 1% of live births are hermaphroditic to a noticeable degree. Perhaps his birth certificate lists him as a girl. (That would explain his pitching and if Larry Sinclair is to be believed, his catching style)...
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.