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.
“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.
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.)