...and the political tarball continues to roll down the hill.
“a document certified by another state, such as a short form birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. Maskell, Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.” - Letter to Sec of State of GA, Joblonski
Um - then why don’t they submit a Birth Certificate (LF COLB) they have a couple of certified copies handy, right?
Notice the parsing of words? "The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth (whose?) there." Notice that Jablonski says very carefully that the pResident made "documents" available. Nowhere in this statement does Jablonski say that the "documents" made available are the same as what the State of Hawaii produced, even though he (Jablonski) disingenuinely tries to suggest such, by surrounding the statement with references to the Full Faith and Credit language. Busted!
If this has been brought up already further down in the thread, my apologies.
Put the attorney in cuffs.
Breaking News: The Georgia Secretary Of State Brian Kemp Slaps Down Obama’s Attorney And Responds To His Letter.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79405341/Obama-s-Attorney-Jaberwoki-Slapped-Down-By-Georgia-SOS-1-25-2012
Here is the Sec Of State Response:
VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL
Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
Dear Mr. Jablonski:
I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of StateAdministrative Hearings (”OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client andadvising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. WhileI regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As thereferring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearingsscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, Ido not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of thereport, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to myreview of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in theOSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to thismatter.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Kemp
Send Raylan in to get him!
I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:
I had presumed that the idiom natural born citizen appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. Ive never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Heres the quotes:
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html
He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but theres actually three at the official INS .gov site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:
The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien
(Emphasis added.)
Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:
(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. (Emphasis added.)
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. (Emphasis added.)
The only evidence of Obama’s Hawaii birth that the HDOH has produced is the 1960-64 birth index with his name in it.
Which they had deliberately altered so that it would include legally non-valid records...
Ping.
Well Hon. Michael Malihi Van Irion, that’s that, you dumb ass hillbilly. They ain’t coming. Like they said, you can kiss their arse. Since you don’t know shiite from shinola.
This matter has already been settled in prior courts. Obama was born in Hawaii. His daddy was a foreigner from Kenya. So what? Who cares? Besides, this hoopla about being a natural born citizen to be eligible is ancient BS. Get with the program Judge. Dismiss the case, and let’s move on. Be a good ole boy now. Do as you are told.