Posted on 01/31/2012 6:43:27 PM PST by RobinMasters
Lissen to da conman, ya hear?! Da conman nose!
“Hell, he could send a copy to the judges’ home address it should have no weight since it wasn’t presented in court as a response to the ballot challenge from one of the plaintiffs where the plaintiff could challenge it’s authenticity.”
Correct. Sending a whiny letter and “birth certificate” image to the SOS doesn’t constitute introduction of such as “evidence” in a court proceeding.
“I personally think there is a good chance he can’t even prove he is a “native born” citizen.”
Yep, and I personally think that we’ll see the HDOH records repository go up in flames before we’ll ever see an actual, hard-copy LFBC for “Obama” released for public inspection.
Why will Obama not present ANYTHING authentic? If he had a valid Hawaii BC after an adoption it would appear to be the original; nobody would have a way to prove that it wasn’t the original.
He hasn’t done that. Why not? Adopted people have legally valid BC’s that they show all the time, just like anybody else. Why won’t Obama show one? Why forge documents instead? That wouldn’t be explained by adoption, even if he WAS adopted. Which he may well have been, and possibly more than once.
More no guts B.S. from the coward courts , just goes on and on and on and on.
Romney’s Dad was born in Mexico. Was he an American citizen, when Mit was born? Anybody know?
But once this gets appealed into the Federal courts, couldn't that then be demanded? Or do they have to live with just the existing evidence presented?
I wonder where an affadavit would fit in relative to a mere attachment to the letter from Obama's attorney to Kemp. The latter seems of tenuous veracity, in the manner of "attached is something that my client posted on the net that either he or perhaps someone in his office claims is a copy of his birth certificate." In legal proceedings involving civil lawsuits, if my understanding is correct, a party needs to swear under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state that the attachment is a true copy of the document it is purported to represent. Thus, every document copy is accompanied by an affadavit containing a sworn signed statement. If there is no affidavit attesting to the veracity of the copy allegedly submitted as evidence, it is more difficult for me to envision that the copy can even be considered evidence at all by the court. OTOH, the rules of the administrative court might be more informal than the rules of evidence in a formal civil or criminal proceeding in a superior court. Does anyone know one way or another?
Taitz has yet to interpret correctly one thing she’s been told by a judge. I would put absolutely no stock in anything she says. She keeps coming up with all this crap that’s absolutely untrue, and gets folks who follow the issue excited for no reason at all.
The general availability of the document to various plaintiffs in these actions is demonstrated by inclusion of the document in several filings with OSAH.
From this language it's not clear if "the document" is the COLB or the LFBC. This almost sounds like Jablonski filed it, but no, later in the MTQ, he writes:
The documents evidencing the birth of President Obama have been made available to the general public or are irrelevant to the proceeding. The plaintiffs obtained copies. Indeed, their filings with OSAH show that they have obtained copies.
This makes it sound like the plaintiffs obtained copies, but apparently this only means that images were downloaded, so they aren't really formal or certified copies of either the COLB or the LFBC. Obama claims to have TWO hard copies of the LFBC, and Jablonski knows there are claims that the LFBC is not legit, so this begs the question: Has he or Obama submitted one of the allegedly CERTIFIED, hard copies of the LFBC to the court?? If so, then Orly would be right in that she should be entitled to inspect that document.
Yep. The word-parsing is off the charts. This has been discussed a little bit, on another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2838105/posts?page=1295#1295
It’s complete Smoke and Lawyerese Double-Speak.
Oh- Since I’ve already got you on the horn, if you’ve got some time to read some truly outstanding analysis, you really, REALLY should check out this offfering:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts?page=1
One of the Fogblowers is saying the micro-fiche of the original BC is obsolete:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845&start=6175#p338502
That is our best outcome. Force *HIM* to prove he's legit, or keep him off the ballot. This should happen in every state. Had people done this in the first place, we would not have added another trillion dollars to the National Debt, and we would not have had two more Liberal judges on the court. A whole host of disasters would have been avoided.
I personally think there is something really problematic for him on his original birth document.
It's a possibility, but I wouldn't consider it a likely possibility. The investigation would likely catch someone at the DOH, and they are first and foremost interested in their own welfare over that of Obama's. Of course with this guy, Who can say?
Anyway, the position of all the states ought to be "no tickee, no washee!"
That’s why I and others are asserting that we’ll never actually see the paper copy, typed up by the hospital staff, on the day he was born.
It doesn’t exist or contains something that would blow the whole 0bama facade.
He hasn’t done that. Why not? Adopted people have legally valid BC’s that they show all the time, just like anybody else. Why won’t Obama show one? Why forge documents instead? That wouldn’t be explained by adoption, even if he WAS adopted. Which he may well have been, and possibly more than once.
And there you may have answered your own question. If Obama had the document which existed after the Barack Obama Sr divorce, THAT would probably have passed muster. However, he was likely adopted by Soetoro, and that sealed the earlier document. When he later was adopted by his Grandparents in 1971, that sealed the previous adoption generated document.
It likely never mattered to him until all of us started hounding him for the original, and it is very likely that he only managed to get Hawaii to issue him a replacement just last year. He had probably gone for most of his life utilizing whatever document he had after his grandparents adopted him, never needing any other till lately.
Presumably the Federal court could be presented additional evidence. I don't see them as having any restraints unless they just want them.
BZ says the “raised seal” that Savanah Guthrie felt is not the same size as a genuine HDOH seal.
It’s not a replacement, it’s a forgery.
Perhaps the court and Secretary of State should lead with that very topic in ruling and press release, “Because, and among other issues, PRESIDENT OBAMA and The STATE OF HAWAII REFUSE to submit to the Georgia court and, or the Secretary of State, a certified long form copy.......”
Keep hammering “The State of Hawaii” and “Refusal to release certified....” Remind people that these documents are required for basic everyday proofs such as little league baseball, drivers license and passport applications.
Of course the main issue is Natural Born Citizen which he is not, but keep the onus of perceived disenfranchisement on Hawaii and Obama’s refusal to release certified doc into the record.
Obama and Hawaii chose to disenfranchise his own voters in the state of Georgia.
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.