Check out # 63 and # 64 by OafOfOffice.
Also # 62 by old republic.
Posted on 06/20/2010 4:52:13 PM PDT by Man50D
The former Honolulu elections official who caused a national stir this month when he told WND Barack Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii, and that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate even exists for the president in the Aloha State is now reaffirming those claims to a network television affiliate.
Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu was interviewed by Gene Birk of ABC affiliate WBKO-TV in Bowling Green, Ky.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
For someone so interested in this subject you sure don’t know very much about it. And looking at your posts you want everyone to run around, find links and answer questions. You have very little to add.
Anything I know is on FR. Either in my posts or in the search area.
If I have time I will look for it.
Not to mention constitutional subversion, conspiracy to commit fraud/conspiracy to overthrow the US Government, perjury, treason, corruption, obstruction of justice, and a host of other serious crimes. This would be the King of all RICO cases...and that doesn't even get to treason and the constitutional problems.
This below is what I think could be on the original birth certificate. “Hawaii Certificate of Foreign Birth” I say think because until Obama shows his original there are multiple ways he could get a BC.
http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-120.pdf
Certificate of birth entitled a “Hawaii Certificate of Foreign Birth” is issued. ... certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child
Then he could have had it amended to late birth certificate.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of Health Status Monitoring will send:
you got evidence as to this?
DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127
after re-reading the article @CFP, STILL cannot see where you get your statement 'bout "normally".
I didn't post the comment. You don't remember who you question? I simply posted the article with the documents with Pelosi's fraud.
Check out # 63 and # 64 by OafOfOffice.
Also # 62 by old republic.
Nope. A Notary is only certifying that the person signed the document in their presence. They are not certifying the truthfulness of the signed document.
Any way we all could get certified this way...Be something if a few thousand people who have legitimate BC from other states also got one from HI....Just so we can say: “Yes we can!” ;~)
The notary who signs and stamps a sworn affidavit is only attesting to the fact that the person who swears out the affidavit is the person that the affiant claims to be. The Notary is not responsible for the truth of the content of the affidavit; the affiant is.
People need to go to jail for this.
Yes, if Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the presidency, whoever swore out that false affidavit has committed perjury.
Plus he’s got an old signup date so he could have been studying up like the rest of us.
Or sleeper/
you got evidence as to this?
Probably not, since the Administrative Rule you link to didn't go into effect until 1981, when O would have been about twenty years old. But we do know that back in 1961, there was a provision in the Hawaii statutes allowing for a relative living in Hawaii to register the foreign birth (or out of state US birth) of a baby with the Hawaii DOH. What the title of the document such a registration would have resulted in is uncertain.
Please do not post the video that starts out from the “Council of Conservative Citizens”- that is a Stormfront front group and contains advertising to their site. (and as you can guess by affiliation, it isn’t Conservative).
My apologies! Wilco!
This was posted by the brilliant investigator on here,
BUTTERDEZILLION:
“Normally the DNC does not certify the Constitutional eligibility of their candidate because they say that is the responsibility of the state party. The DNC claims to certify the national candidate in each of the individual states based on that state allowing the candidate to be on the ballot, which is supposed to mean that the state has verified that the person is eligible for the job.
But they ran into a problem with Hawaii because the Hawaii Democratic Party refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. According to the DNC protocols that should have meant that the DNC wouldn’t certify Obama as their candidate in Hawaii, if at all. Instead, they made an exception and Nancy Pelosi signed the certification of eligibility without having done ANY verification at all. She knew she was perjuring herself by claiming to know he was eligible. And she had to have some idea why the HDP refused to certify eligibility. Those should all have been HUGE red flags to Pelosi.
Pelosi could easily have asked to see the documentation before signing an oath regarding Obama. As I’ve said in a previous post, the HDOH has confirmed that NOBODY who signed those documents (and NOBODY in the DNC leadership) even asked to see Obama’s documentation anytime from 6 months before the DNC convention until now.
Pelosi perjured herself to get Obama on the November 2008 ballot. She did it because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. IOW - to this day, NOBODY has done even the most rudimentary check of Obama’s eligibility.
I requested and received from the Hawaii Elections Office the certifications from the HDP and DNC in the 2 elections before that - which is the farthest back that the Hawaii Elections Office has the records, from what the official told me when I called.
The HDP certifications from the other 2 elections both had the Constitutional eligibility certification included, they were both dated several weeks after the DNC Convention (in 2000 the DNC signed on Aug 17th and the HDP on Sept 8th; in 2004 the DNC signed on July 29th and the HDP on Aug 31st), and they had no letter of transmittal filed with them because they were hand-delivered to the Elections Office in Hawaii. That was the protocol according to the only records we have.
All of those protocols were ignored for Obama. They did EVERYTHING different.
The certification in 2008 was identical to the other years EXCEPT the Constitutional eligibility language was omitted. I asked the HDP representative on the phone who approved those changes and when; I was called a “birther”, told I was nuts, and was refused any information.
The HDP certification in 2008 was signed at the DNC Convention - one day before the DNC signed any of their certifications.
The HDP Certification was sent to the HI Elections Office by Joseph Sandler, Esq - together with the DNC certification (which had been printed up specially for Hawaii with the Constitutional eligibility language added) and a transmittal letter from Sandler’s law office. That is what the clerk told me when I called him. He also said that there were no letters of transmittal for the HDP certifications from 2000 and 2004 because they were hand-delivered.
But that’s some of the information I have on this subject. I also have the e-mail from the HDOH confirming that there were no UIPA requests from Joseph Sandler, Brian Schatz, William H. Gilardy, Nancy Pelosi, Alice Travis Germond, Howard Dean, Neil Abercrombie, Daniel Inouye, or Senator Akaka anytime from January of 2008 until February of 2010 (when my request was answered).”
I think we need to email that to Bubba bitt!
obumpa
TX. As usual, BUTTERDEZILLION is in 'top form'; truly an inspiration for all of us. I wanna have SANDLER subpoenaed, please.
That's why soooooo many trying "CYA" including Scotus!!!
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.