I’m glad to see you’re in touch with the White House... :-)
It’s obvious that the State of Hawaii is not going to put out an official statement like that, bearing on the President of the United States, and concerning an issue that some are hollering about him not being qualified (thus wanting to remove him from office — and not have their State of Hawaii lawyers vetting every single word and making sure they are perfectly accurate... LOL..
If you think that the State of Hawaii is going to let that kind of statement about the President of the United States go out without every single word being vetted by State lawyers — you’re delusional then... :-)
If enough of us kept demanding his records eventually they
would be released, forgery's or not.
Hows that for delusional?
Dr. Fukino’s statement is derivative. It is at best an interpretation of other documents not in evidence. As an interpretation of original documents, it is subject to error whereas the original documents stand by themselves. Also as an interpretation of original documents, it does not carry any force of law one way or another, by the legal doctrine of best evidence. The legal doctrine of best evidence holds that the best evidence available must be used to resolve an issue in a court of law. Therefore please tell us how Dr. Fukino’s statement is relevant to the issue of whether or not Obama is Constitutionally elegible to hold the office of President given that it is derivative and does not carry the weight of best evidence in a court of law. “Go ask someone else” is not distinguishable by me from “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, you can simply admit it. By the way, what is 2 + 2?