Donald Trump Thinks Obama PRETENDED to be Kenyan to Attract Financial Aid (i.e. lied)

It is not the fault of the judiciary that the appropriate plaintiffs who could have filed suit chose not to bother with pursuing legal action. That blame should go on the major political parties and the so-called “third parties.”
I can guarantee you that there is no judge in America who is going to rule favorably on a candidate eligibility challenge without the opposition candidate(s) as parties to the complaint.
The proof of what I am saying is that more than 500 judges (when counting multi-judge appeals court/state and federal supreme court panels) have had a chance to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility and not one of them has ruled him to be ineligible.
Before the 2008 election, before the vote of the electors, before the certification of the Electoral College vote by both Houses of Congress and before Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed an ineligibility appeal and permitted it to stand. Justices Souter, Kennedy and Scalia could have issued injunctions, but they did not.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-570.htm

“The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.”

In the 2012 Election cycle, two Republican Secretaries of State did just that in response to citizen complaints, Ken Bennett, the Arizona Secretary of State (on a complaint filed by a local Phoenix suburban Tea Party group) and Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State in response to a former and now zotted Freeper, Edge919.

Both of those Secretaries of State requested confirmation of Obama’s birth vital records from Hawaii and received Certified Letters of Verification.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604

Under Article Four, Section One of the Constitution, there was little else they could do.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, RECORDS, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”—Article IV, Section 1.

What the Secretaries of State needed was a criminal court ruling that Obama’s birth record is fraudulent, forged, altered, filed late or amended.
There has never been such a criminal (or even civil) court ruling. There has been no criminal court proceeding at all.

It is not the fault of the Judiciary that the primary person (John McClain.) who should have filed a lawsuit did not do so. It is their fault that they did not fast walk lawsuits from other people instead of going down the "standing" slap down road.

It is entirely the fault of the Judiciary that the primary line of defense (Individual Secretaries of State) did not know what was the correct application of the law, and that it was their duty to enforce it. Thanks to over 100 years of misunderstanding the 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the judiciary and the entire legal community bears much responsibility for the promulgation of this incorrect understanding of the law.

I can guarantee you that there is no judge in America who is going to rule favorably on a candidate eligibility challenge without the opposition candidate(s) as parties to the complaint.

When Judges don't want to rule a certain way, they can come up with an endless bounty of excuses as to why. When they DO want to rule a certain way, they just do it. Wasn't it Judge Mahili that ruled for the Defendant even though they didn't even bother to show up?

Rules and procedures are subjective nowadays. Judges indulge them at their whim.

The proof of what I am saying is that more than 500 judges (when counting multi-judge appeals court/state and federal supreme court panels) have had a chance to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility and not one of them has ruled him to be ineligible.

And here you come again with that Fallacy of false authority argument. All you have here is 500 judges letting other judges think for them without a one of them starting from first principles. It was just like that disaster with the Thunderbirds. When the Lead pilot flew into the ground, the rest of them flew into the ground with him.

Courts have turned flying into the ground into an art form. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if they would do their own thinking and research instead of relying on bad interpretations of previous thinking.

Both of those Secretaries of State requested confirmation of Obama’s birth vital records from Hawaii and received Certified Letters of Verification.

Which contained weasel words, and were therefore useless as proof. As a matter of fact, they reinforce the probability that there is something seriously wrong with his birth certificate, because Hawaiian law makes specific allowances to provide copies of birth certificates to election officials. That they would not do so, but rather insisted on providing summations more or less proves the point in contention.

What the Secretaries of State needed was a criminal court ruling that Obama’s birth record is fraudulent, forged, altered, filed late or amended. There has never been such a criminal (or even civil) court ruling. There has been no criminal court proceeding at all.

Any effort to get such a thing will be dismissed for lack of standing. You might as well be a Jewish defendant in a Volksgerichtshof for all the good going to the Judiciary will do you.

By now we are all aware that these rulings are political in nature, not an accurate application of the legal principles involved.

The certified Letters of Verification from the Hawaii state Registrar of Vital Statistics satisfied the concerns of both of the Secretaries of State who had requested them. Both state officials cleared Obama for their state’s ballot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/arizona-secretary-of-state-ken-bennett-satisfied-obama-was-born-in-united-states/2012/05/23/gJQAN1czkU_blog.html

http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/17/2492998/kansas-expects-to-end-challenge.html

If anyone remains unclear as to what the Registrar was saying in those letters or if he used “weasel words,” the Registrar can be deposed under oath; he can be called testify before a Grand Jury or in open court and/ or he can be subpoenaed to testify before a Congressional committee.

Both Secretaries of State received exactly what they had requested and they had REQUESTED Certified “Letters of Verification In Lieu of Certified Copy.” That is in exact accordance with Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3.

2011 Hawaii Code
DIVISION 1. GOVERNMENT
TITLE 19. HEALTH
338. Vital Statistics
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.

Universal Citation: HI Rev Stat § 338-14.3 (2011 through Reg Sess)
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2011/division1/title19/chapter338/338-14-3

“Any effort to get such a thing will be dismissed for lack of standing. You might as well be a Jewish defendant in a Volksgerichtshof for all the good going to the Judiciary will do you.”

Article III Standing is a legal concept that only pertains to civil actions (lawsuits). It is not a concept used in criminal courts and my post was about CRIMINAL court actions, not civil court actions.

You don’t need “standing” in order to be charged with a crime or for a prosecutor to launch a grand jury investigation to determine if there is enough evidence to indict anyone for crimes may have been committed.

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.