Posted on 01/31/2009 12:29:20 AM PST by Red Steel
Getting away with it is. They did cite all sorts of case law to back up their position, so maybe they will.
The thing that confuses me is this: The photos on factcheck appear to me to at least show a genuine Hawaiian certification document. (I don't buy the forgery arguments.) But why wouldn't Obama's lawyers be given a copy of it. Perhaps they would have to show it to the judge in open court to make their point, whereas they are hoping to arrange a dismissal without a hearing.
Didn’t Obama already do that when he said he’d spread the wealth around? Obama is a Socialist!
Just show us the original long form Birth Certificate.
Then, the drama will vaporize, or.......
Thanks!!
I agree! When someone hides something- they have something to hide. Note the amount of legal fees Obama has paid to keep his original birth certificate hidden.
Thank you, LJ. Certain posters just bring out the beast in me, you know what I mean?
Yes it will, allcaps notwithstanding.
If that class action lawsuit was able to get at least 200,000 names on it, it would have standing. A mass mailing with the facts surrounding the bc issue would need to be sent to all registered Republicans. They could join the suit, or not.
“Hammer me if you will, ban me if you will, but these lawsuits are ridiculous. They are meritless and we need to keep our eye on the ball if we are to regain the majority.”
I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Rocky: "But that trick never works."
Bullwinkle: "This time for sure!"
If such a mass mailing were to be undertaken, I think it would be beneficial to include the PUMAs, whom I believe were 25% of the usual dem vote.
Not. 338-19 says that they may issue *copies*, the Certification is not a copy, it's an abstract from the original. 338-16 says that birth certificates issued one year or more late have to be clearly marked "late" or "altered". Note that Obama's COLB is not so marked and again the author has omitted this important fact.
The context makes it clear that by "Birth Certificates" they mean the original Certificate of Live Birth, not the abstract prepared from it.
§338-13 is the one that lets them make the Certification:
338-13 Certified copies.
(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
BTW, this section also indicates that the Department must, upon request, provide a certified *copy* of any such documents, which is different than "the contents of any part thereof", which is what the Certification is, a copy of part of the contents of the original document.
Gee, another one where the seal is easily visible, that makes around 8 think, the 9th, Obama’s is the lone standout where the seal is not easily visible or visible at all.
All Hell will Break Loose and then the SHTF.
Yes, that is technically correct. But I think what is probably going on is the following:
1. The Department of Health is interpreting the law to mean that they can issue the certification and call it a copy. They are mixing up the two concepts and getting away with it.
2. This is not right because there is additional information on the original certificates, but most likely hardly anyone ever calls them on this and probably no one has previously filed court cases over this issue. The vast majority of applicants probably take their "certification" and go on their merry way.
3. An additional reason that I think this is true is that there does not appear to be any method on the DOH website to order a "vault copy". The only option openly provided is to order the certification, but the DOH website calls this a "certified copy". Note that the fees requested are exactly as provided for in HRS 338-14.5
4. According to HRS 338-13(a), the DOH is supposed to provide to the applicant upon request information from any part of a certificate, but it appears that one must have to make some special arrangement to do this and they don't make it easy to find out how. HRS 338-14 (and 338-14.5) appears to provide the authorization to establish fees for certified copies and searches, but there is nothing in there about a specific fee for a vault copy.
5. Of course Obama would not have any problem getting past this bureaucracy if he really wanted to request a vault copy.
Austrailia News gets it...”Call to Protect the Republic”
Australian News | 1/30/09 | Zach Jones
Posted on 01/30/2009 5:43:42 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2174882/posts
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.