"unfortunately there is some legal record that indicates that there is a birth record for him in the United States (not in the state of Hawaii)."
David, resources are always available from this group. What do you need?
and...I see from above post #1229 that you think certain people believe that O was born in country...but what's this about ("not in the state of HI")
...could you be suggesting "on the Island of HI BEFORE it became a State"...some of us have entertained the possibility that O was born prior to HI being admitted into the USA.....that would explain lack of pictures, verifiable dates, and a good reason for G'maw to start working on his false papers when he was very young...
and...I see from above post #1229 that you think certain people believe that O was born in country...but what's this about ("not in the state of HI")
...could you be suggesting "on the Island of HI BEFORE it became a State"...some of us have entertained the possibility that O was born prior to HI being admitted into the USA.....that would explain lack of pictures, verifiable dates, and a good reason for G'maw to start working on his false papers when he was very young...
In reverse order.
No, I do not think he was born in Hawaii before Statehood. Matter of fact, as I recall, that was the Goldwater issue (with respect to Arizona) and I think there was a general consensus that if you have those facts where the territory ultimately becomes a state, the candidate is eligible.
As to the actual place of birth, I am not anxious to put information out there in a public post for two reasons. We have had the experience of putting information out there and then finding that the underlying source has been erased because the Opposing Forces read these posts just like everyone else.
Further, the possibility also exists that whatever evidence one found would be a fake like the Hawaii evidence, done by someone on the other side who anticipated we would get that far and left us more misinformation to find.
If we had real substantive hard evidence, we would use it and will do so if we get it.
As to resources: Someone on the board was looking for the next piece of evidence we need but has not yet come up with anything. The requirements for the person doing the looking are a little narrow and I will let you know what they are.
Sure, you might like to have the money to hire a Private Investigator who unquestionably would come up with the next piece but then you are spending money and if all you have is enough to hire a PI to do a narrow piece of the work, you don't have the resources to use the result.
The real resource issue is the need for an experienced senior lawyer to run the project. Remember, on the other side, you are contesting with a number of experienced quality lawyers with all the support they need. The kind of person you need isn't going to be in a position to do this as a volunteer because he too has financial commitments and kids to educate etc. Neither are the support people who will be involved.
We now don't really know much about how much they have spent to date or how it has been funded or who is now in charge. Looking at the individual lawyers in the act, many of whom I know personally or have seen their work product in other settings, I have guessed that the total legal effort so far is in the $10mm range and they are not done. The Georgia case is the first time they have cheaped out on the legal and the loss there may be the crack that defeats them.
There is a general level of misunderstanding about how lawyers operate on this kind of effort and how a multi jurisdictional action like this is managed. But the result of four years of pursuing this objective with individual lawyers fighting narrow battles has not been very successful.