My hope is that he fears the Tea Party backlash enough that he will bother to LISTEN to why this matters - and brush up on some facts.
In response to the editorial at http://www.hutchnews.com/Editorialblogs/edit-congress-withdraw-endorsement—1 I sent the following letter to the editor, which summarizes the legal aspects of this issue, although Buck should also be aware of the lawlessness at every level of government, media, and law enforcement regarding this issue. Here’s what I said (minus identifying info):
Dear Editor:
I am requesting a correction to the editorial in which the Hutch News rescinded its endorsement for Mann for Congress because he is a “birther”.
The editorial almost entirely relies on an alleged fact that is totally inaccurate. Hawaii’s Secretary of State has never come forward with Obama’s birth certificate. That is just plain factually incorrect, and in accordance with journalistic ethics it should be corrected.
The fact of the matter is that nobody in Hawaii has released any of Obama’s documents (even though at this point Hawaii law REQUIRES them to release the documentation upon request) because they say they can’t release it without Obama’s consent.
And they have never confirmed the authenticity of the Factcheck COLB. In fact, Janice Okubo said in an e-mail to me that Hawaii law forbids her from even telling LAW ENFORCEMENT whether the Factcheck COLB is authentic, or a forgery. She says she cannot directly state anything that would reveal what is on a genuine BC.
What the Hawaii DOH HAS INDIRECTLYconfirmed via their official, legal responses to UIPA requests is that Obama’s birth certificate was amended sometime in 2006 when Obama was considering a 2008 run for the presidency (an amendment which must be noted on any genuine COLB but isn’t noted on Factcheck), AND that the certificate number and “date filed” on the Factcheck COLB are incompatible so that one or the other (or both) had to have been altered on the Factcheck COLB. IOW, The HDOH has indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
Furthermore, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that an amended birth certificate is not prima facie evidence. The probative value of an amended BC is determined when it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Until that happens the amended BC has no more legal weight than Monopoly money. Even if Nancy Pelosi or anybody within the DNC or Hawaii Democratic Party had ASKED to see Obama’s documents (which the HDOH confirms none of them ever has), they could not legally determine his birth facts because they are not administrative or judicial. Likewise, Chiyome Fukino could not make an announcement declaring what Obama’s birth facts are because there is no procedure whereby his birth certificate would be presented to her AS EVIDENCE.
The only way Obama’s birth facts could have been legally determined is if his BC had been presented to a SOS somewhere in the country in the process of placing his name on the ballot (as is allowable without his permission, according to the DOH Administrative Rules which Fukino illegally hid until a year after the election), or if Obama had presented his BC in any of the court cases he fought and the judge had ruled on its probative value.
Obama (aided by the illegal behavior of the Hawaii DOH) prevented either of those things from happening before Jan 20th - the deadline which the 20th Amendment gives for the president-elect to “qualify”. There is no way he could have qualified by then because the facts of his birth have never EVEN TO THIS DAY been legally determined - including his age, place of birth, and parentage (each of which could disqualify him from the presidency). Legally he HAS NO BIRTH FACTS. The process necessary to legally establish the facts of his birth has never happened - regardless of any certifications signed by the DNC or Congress, who are legislative rather than judicial or administrative and thus cannot fulfill the requirements of Hawaii law (which must be honored by the federal government, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution).
Obama can not have qualified by January 20, 2009 because even his age was not legally determined by then (nor has it been legally determined YET). THAT is a fact.
The 20th Amendment says that if a president-elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th the vice-president-elect is to act as president until a president qualifies. Obama is Constitutionally disqualified from acting as president and having the presidential powers - regardless of whether he is the president, has been certified as the electoral winner by Congress, or has taken the oath of office. None of those things overrides the actual requirement of the 20th Amendment.
That also is a fact.
I’ve got full documentation for these things on my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ .
I am requesting a correction of your statement that the Hawaii SOS has come forward with Obama’s birth certificate, which is factually incorrect. Even if she had, it would have no more legal value than Monopoly money - which is a point that the public also has a right to know. Unless you would like to print a follow-up article including the information above, I also ask you to print this letter.
I respectfully ask you to withhold my name, location, and phone number because I have received threats of rape on my blog from someone claiming to be in northern Kansas after I began posting on your online site. Please contact me to notify me of what you intend to print before printing. I would appreciate a response either way, telling me what actions you plan to take as a result of this new information brought to your attention.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(redacted)