U.S. attorney: Nothing Americans can do about eligibility

WND ^ | October 14, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[americanophile]

Congress can always grant standing. Perhaps that should be something we push our new majority on...

[sometime lurker]

It is my understanding that the information was not attained by normal channels. There is nothing in HIPAA that would prevent a Hawaiian hospital from stating that obama was born there , since he has already claimed to be born at that hospital.

Sorry, but again, this is wrong. It doesn't matter what public statements a patient has made. Without a written release, the hospital can't release information. HIPAA does indeed forbid releasing that information; as I posted above HIPAA regards "the provision of health care to the individual," as protected information. I urge you to read the HIPAA rules - they are very strict.

I would be very suspicious of anything that was "not attained by normal channels" for confirmation. These are 40 + year old records, and would not be lying around the hospital for someone to casually access. Medical space is expensive and paper records get archived after a certain number of years; certainly after 20 years. Archived records are usually stored offsite in secure storage. So anyone who confirmed this would have had to go through boxes of paper records in a secure storage area. If the hospitals contract with a records storage company (many do) the person accessing the records area has to sign and be confirmed as having the right to access the records.

[sometime lurker]

Sorry, but hospital birth records are indeed health information - they confirm that the person was a patient in the hospital, which the hospital is not permitted to do except in very limited circumstances. Are you lumping hospital birth certificates with official certificates? HIPAA does not have anything to do with state, county, etc. policies on official birth certificate release, only release of the hospital version. Which was what was under discussion.

[sometime lurker]

The same as my reply in #143 - the policies governing counties and states are not the same as the law applying to medical facilities. The state can decide to release whatever information it wants. The patient can disclose more details than most people want to know on the morning shows. No matter, hospitals are still bound by HIPAA law.

[jamese777]

Congress can always grant standing. Perhaps that should be something we push our new majority on...

---

No, Congress cannot grant legal standing in a judicial procedure. The Courts operate independently of the judiciary.
What Congress can do is hold its own investigations and Congress can subpoena documents and witnesses to testify under oath, on its own.
Even better, there are no issue of standing to get in the way of a grand jury investigation of Obama for election fraud. Grand juries have always been used to uncover possible criminal activity on the part of elected officials: Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, CIA Leaks all had Grand Jury investigations.

[americanophile]

Of course they can, that’s how statutory standing is granted. Furthermore Congress can eliminate every Article III court it wants to except for the Supreme Court. Congress has enormous power over the so-called co-equal judiciary.

[jamese777]

Of course they can, that’s how statutory standing is granted. Furthermore Congress can eliminate every Article III court it wants to except for the Supreme Court. Congress has enormous power over the so-called co-equal judiciary.

---

However every Obama eligibility lawsuit has been dismissed on grounds of PRECEDENTIAL standing under Article III based on the landmark Supreme Court decisions in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) and Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923).
I’m betting that unless there were 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, there will be no elimination of the federal judiciary and if there were to be 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, President Obama would veto any attempt to disband Article III courts and 67 votes would be required to override that veto.
In other words, highly unlikely/

[americanophile]

Well, the practicality is another issue, though there's no constitutional mandate for a sixty vote majority in the Senate as far as the creation or elimination of Article III courts, and the president's assent is not required. Congress' power here is plenary.

[Red Steel]

Here’s a link to the scanned images of the two certifications of eligibility sent by the Democrats to get Obama on the ballot in Hawai’i. The first is signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Democratic Party of Hawai’i and the second is signed by the Chairman of the National Democratic Party and by Nancy Pelosi in her role as Chair of the Democratic National Convention and by Alice Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention.

You are a stupid troll. The only reason Pelosi signed the separate statement is because the Hawaiian DNC did not certify Obama for the state of Hawaii and did not state Obama was qualified under the US Constitution. According to Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113, it does not specify that the the Hawaiian DNC had to certify Obama in Hawaii but that a recognized party does it. It took the National DemoRat party to certify Obama to satisfy Hawaiian law.

Repeating the post again.

- - - -

The evidence:

Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots). The Hawaiian DNC state party left out for Obama's certification that he is qualified under the US Constitutional, which is highlighted in the letter below.

Here is the Hawaiian DNC certification for Obama, which is missing the qualification under the US Constitution and for the state of Hawaii.

John Kerry's 2004 Hawaiian party DNC Certification. Notice that Kerry is qualified under the US Constitutional and for the state of Hawaii.

Al Gore's 2000 Hawaiian DNC party certification. You will also notice that he fully complies with Hawaiian Revised Statutes 11-113.

Enter Nancy Pelosi signed statement... because Hawaii did not fully certify Barack Hussein Obama. Pelosi signs the statement to fulfill the required Hawaiian law under Revised Statutes 11-113.

- - - - -

Since the state of Hawai’i, with a Republican Governor and a Republican Attorney General accepted the Democrats’ state and national letters of certifications to get on the ballot, where’s the controversy?

Hello Hello stupid Jamiese7777,... again, Pelosi covered Obama's butt with the statement to Hawaii that fulfilled the requirement of the law. Read the Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots), the letter that I provided above. What does it say Obot? It says:

"Hawaii Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots) provides that a recognized political party will provide the Office of Elections with following information prior to placing the names of its candidates for President and Vice President on the Presidential ballot:...."

Commie nut Nancy Pelosi represented the "recognized political party" that is recognized by Hawaii. The Controversy dolt, is Pelosi had to do just that, sign for the Hawaiian DNC after they refused to recognize Obama for their state. Understand now? This is proof positive you are a silly troll for Soros.

And pay up your $200 bet you lost with Danae...that Hawaii does issue long form Birth Certificates upon request.

[mojitojoe]

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-finds.html

Scroll down to bottom of the page.

More:

100% troll

http://www.google.com/search?q=JAMESE777&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL

[mojitojoe]

I called to get my long form. It was like pulling teeth. Let’s just say that I’m 99% sure that the woman on the phone was a Odumba$$ supporter that was well aware of the BC issues. After about 10 minutes she reluctantly admitted I could get a long form, but she was very annoyed. Apparently she screwed up when she put in the application for it. I had to fax photo ID, she confirmed that she received it and it was ok but I never got the BC. A month or so later I called and asked where it was. They said the photo ID wasn’t satisfactory. I told them that she verified that she received it, checked it and said it was ok. They said she stamped it or whatever they do and said that it was too dark.

Whether she did this on purpose or not is anyone’s guess. But she had a major attitude. I finally got it.

[butterdezillion]

I think there’s a strong case for it, though - especially since in deleting the one line that mentioned Consitutional eligibility the HDP also deleted the only piece of direct information they were required by law to submit to the Elections Office: the statement that Obama and Biden were the candidates duly chosen BY THE HAWAII DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

So in order to take out the part about Constitutional eligibility they actually took out the part of that document that was required by law. There is reason to question whether the HDP ever actually did what was required by law in order to get Obama on the ballot. There is no DIRECT statement that Obama and Biden are the candidates of the HDP.

There is no way anybody is going to convince me that anybody from the HDP or DNC deleted that line because they thought it made Obama’s placement on the Hawaii ballot air-tight, because it does just the opposite.

There was a different reason they did it. Of that we can be sure.

And it is instructive that the HDP refuses to say who, when, or why that change was made - and I know that because the HDP worker said it directly to me, that they WILL NOT address that. They gave the same response to World Net Daily.

If there was a harmless reason they changed it, why won’t they just come out with it?