Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
'For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself'
A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.
The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.
In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.
“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Because if it is late or altered it would be stamped on the original and copies.
Not so much. Why does he put the words “Certificate of Live Birth” in quotation marks??
However, Onaka says that he’s reviewed both the original record and the BC posted by the White House and he says that they match. No mention of any late or amended stamp.
Also, it’s important to understand that the Hawaii Department of Health may not have had a “Certificate of Live Birth” on file until they asked Ken Bennett to submit one instead of just using the DOH’s standard request form, which they wouldn’t accept for some strange reason.
They had one on file in April 2011.
He wasn’t asked about a late or amended stamp. He’s only giving the information he was asked about. The DOH made a big deal of having Ken Bennett prove that his request met the direct and tangible interest requirement. They didn’t do this with the MDEC request ... but they quickly honored that request AFTER they figured out a misleading way to respond to Bennett.
We don’t have a legal verification of this claim. Sorry.
But Onaka did verify that the information in the CoLB sent by Bennett macthes the original in their files. An amended or late stamp would be “information”.
He wasn’t asked that specific question.
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Onaka was asked whether the WH BC matches the BC on file at HDOH. He said that it did. If one was stamped with additional information, they wouldn’t match.
Given that I don’t think Klayman has ever won a single case, I won’t hold my breath over this.
Onaka did not state the WH BC matches the BC on file at HDOH.
He stated “The information contained in the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ published at [the Whitehouse website]... matches the information contained in the original...”
Catch that sleight of hand?
A website is NOT a legal verification. Is there some part of this that is too hard to understand??
” Everything Americans hold dear can be destroyed, as long as it avoids a Constitutional crisis. “
The problem is that we are ALREADY in a constitutional crisis....the constitution is being ignored by the dictator.
In a ballot challenge in New Jersey, Obama’s lawyer stipulated that the WH BC PDF can not be relied upon by either the court of Secty of State.
Yet Arizona SOS Bennett was made to rely on that same WH BC PDF and to request a “verification letter” referring to the WH BC PDF... the same one that New Jersey could not rely upon.
After months of stalling and pushback HIDOH finally issued their deceptive “verification”
For the simple reason that Bennett did not explicitly specify a birth date in his request.
And he didn’t even INDIRECTLY oonfirm that those facts are true, as you assert. He verified that those facts are CLAIMED on their record, but what does that mean legally if the record they have is not legally valid? Where does he ever say that the record is valid or that any of the stuff on the record actually happened that way?
Answer that please. You have skirted all my questions.
Respectfully, I have not skirted all your questions. I have answered the above question several times, but I think you disagree with my answer, which is again, that Onaka's verification itself "...is for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."
Onaka followed the language of the statute. You cannot say that the statute is legally invalid. When he verified the information as it appears on their record, then by definition of the statute, that verification is for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur.
I’ll give you a statement and you tell me what this means.
“I verify:
1: name of person: Joe Biden
2. cost: $5.”
What did I just verify?
I don't know. What were you asked to verify?
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.