Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by redhatty

 

Media spin? Your entire argument is based off of blogs and frivolous lawsuits and you think I need to worry about media spin?

You can call them frivolous, your opinion is your own. My argument has been that there is a question all along, that is the ONLY thing I have argued. You can twist things, lead into things and create all the strawmen you want, but if anything, I have been the one who questions Obama's eligibility who has shown exactly why the courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Look, I know you want me to be stupid, but I have a memory long enough to know that you're taking me in circles. I saw that post, and I asked you why, if she saw the BC and it was not from Hawaii, she would call the accusations "ridiculous".

You then said, "let me see that quote, I don't believe she said that". Then I provided it.

ANd your quote is exactly this

""This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.""

This - that is all she said. Exactly what is "this" referring to? Were you there to hear the entire conversation in full context or are you reading the media spin into what "this" means?

oh my it's scary to think that right there I sound like the last democrat president when talking about an aide - YIKES!

So, you can dance around it all you want but, here are some questions I have for you:

-Unless she is a liar, why would say that it is "ridiculous"?

We still do not know exactly what she was referring to with that statement

-Why would the state of Hawaii hold his birth certificate unless he was born there?

Because at the time of Obama's birth - and YOU KNOW this fact has been covered ad nauseum - Out of state and/or country births could still be registered in Hawaii and a Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii would be issued

-Can you provide documentation to back up that states hold birth certificates of people who were not born there?

Hawaii RS 338-17.8

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.Dept of Hawaii DOH Web Site

Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country. State of Hawaii DOH Web Site

And I am sure that your excellent memory can recall that Berg's initial filings detailed quite extensively the laws in place in Hawaii when Obama was born, also known as the "The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program" Which allowed for an out of state/country birth to be registered with the (at that time) territory of Hawaii and a Certification of live birth would be issued.

In fact you can even call the DOH office and they will confirm this (808) 586-4533.

it is pretty clear that some people have an obsession with this.
i'm just wondering why...sure i'll get the ole 'holding up the constitution' argument though

reply to post by redhatty


That doesn't even make sense. You yourself said that what is issued is a COLB, so why would she say that she couldn't release it even with Obama's permission considering Obama has already released that document?

Also, in reference to her "ridiculous" statement, you conveniently left out part of it:

"This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy."

So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid.

Will this be enough to quiet the doubters?

"I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."

If you are honestly trying to tell me that you think that's not what she's saying, then I can't argue with you.

In fact, I will try to email her directly and get a better quote, but I doubt that will help. You'll just pick apart the way it is worded or say its faked. Do you ever admit you are wrong?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You make an excellent point.

I've read several pages of this thread and from what I can tell, the only argument the nay-sayers have here is "She didn't say he wasn't this or that."

But that's not what was being questioned, as far as I can tell, all the questions regarding Obama's BC have been answered to the fullest capacity anyone is capable of (short of visually producing the actual BC for all of the public to view).

To be honest, we should stop arguing "She didn't state this or that" because that idea is actually rhetorical, it holds no meaning. So what if she(Fukino) didn't say what YOU wanted to hear, doesn't mean she's wrong and lying.

That's what confuses me most about some of this argument, hasn't anyone here ever heard of the concept "Don't admit to crimes you didn't commit?" In case no one knows what that saying means, is answer quickly and directly to any questions asked and don't say more than necessary.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Do you ever admit you are wrong?

Oh that is a cheap shot Sublime M1ck.

I have admitted to being wrong and looked to find the information that is correct - example - that NO COURT has subject matter jurisdiction on this - only Congress does at this point. I was the original person who posted that information.

If anything, while I openly admit being in the "doubters club" I have posted more information that helps the "supporters club" than helps my "club" as well as well written arguments that do support the doubters.

I already KNOW that this will not be heard by any court, but it still doesn't change the doubts. I also agree with the literal interpretation of the founders and framers as to what a "natural-born citizen" is and how, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he does not meet the qualifications.

You may not, and that is your right.

BTW, Wrotnowski's stay was denied but no mention, just like Donofrio's of certiorari either way.

Originally posted by redhatty
Out of state and/or country births could still be registered in Hawaii and a Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii would be issued

But would it say the child was born in Hawaii? No way! They can't just change the place of birth. They can change mistakes, adoptive parents, add the father's name, etc., but they can't change where you were born!

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.

A person BORN IN HAWAII, and to prove birth in Hawaii required documentary evidence. I'm sure you've seen that, too.

Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country. [

But it won't say they were born in Hawaii! It will be registered in Hawaii with the actual place of birth on it. They can't just change the place of birth!

In fact you can even call the DOH office and they will confirm this (808) 586-4533.

Did you do that? I tried and couldn't get through the automated menu. When I pressed one for birth certificates, it took me to marriage certificate information.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


In looking through many Hawaii Genealogy sites, it has come to my attention that during the The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program, many people not only had out of territory / foreign births registered, but also that a history of amendments could have (and for many have) been made to the records to alter what would ultimately appear on the COLB.

Genealogist recommend that those requesting BCs from that era also request full transcripts of amendments.

Even Hawaii admits that the program was flawed and subject to errors.

There is no telling what could end up on the "final" COLB

It just feeds the doubt.

As I've said though, it is a mute point anyway. NO COURT has subject matter jurisdiction at this time, and I doubt that there is anyone in Congress who will have the brass to enter an objection when counting of the vote of the Electors is read on Jan 6th, 2009.

reply to post by redhatty


Right, but then when an employee goes back over it, and verifies that it is valid, you have to start assuming... what?

Unless she's a liar... of course.

Just wanted to say, I sent an email to Dr. Fukino (the one everyone here is accusing of being a liar), and asked her if she is willing to clarify her statements to me.

If she responds, and I doubt she will, I will post up what I can.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


M1ck, what you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that they only confirmed that they hold Obama's BC, they DID NOT confirm in any way, shape or form that it is the same as what has been posted on factcheck, daily Kos, etc. I am positive that what the State of Hawaii hold is Valid, it is whether what they hold has, in fact, the same information as the COLB that has been posted onlie that is in question.

And EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii, there is still the "natural-born citizen" clause issues that could be argued.

Again, we may each have opinions on the Natural-born clause, but our individual opinions are not law.

Until a vault BC is presented AND the natural-born clause issue is determined, there will be no way to stop the doubts.

Period.

You don't like it, neither do I. I am more afraid of potential future repercussions and prolonged division in the nation, but that's just me.

At the very least 1/2 of the questions could be put to rest by Obama himself presenting a vault BC to ANY judge (there are still a dozen or so of cases all over the country) or to Congress, but he, to date, has not chosen to exercise this option.

And he knows he can get away with his choice. But he MUST also know that it just feeds the doubters and fosters the division in the public. WHY would he chose to create more division in this country? Is that the "change" he was campaigning?

I got through. She said they don't REGISTER births from out of state. Period.

REGISTER.

Look at your info carefully, redhatty. For one thing, Hawaii RS 338-17.8 is a 1982 law. Obama wasn't born at that time. What they said about foreign country births is NOT that they REGISTER them, but they will amend them (with supporting evidence of the change) and FILE them.

Source

How to Apply for an Amendment

An amendment may be made upon application, but only with the submission of required documentary evidence in support of the amendment. The evidentiary requirements can differ, depending on whether the amendment is court-ordered or, if requested by an individual, whether it materially affects the validity and integrity of the record.
...
When information originally entered on a certificate is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the certificate, and 3) the notation "altered" is written or stamped on the certificate.

reply to post by redhatty


I think it is you that is mixing me up with others. I have not been arguing with you about a multitude of things that you have been arguing with me about. All I have been trying to convey is that this lady is not lying, and that she clearly did all of this and made this statements to quiet down all of the unsubstantiated claims.

That is ALL I was saying. I was not arguing about jurisdiction or phrasing in the Constitution. Again, I am only arguing that she reviewed the BC, and she was clearly trying to portray that he was born there (without saying anything illegal or releasing information on the BC).

As far as "what is a natural-born citizen" as defined by the Constitution - it doesn't appear to be clearly addressed. I don't see why anyone would want to try to impeach someone off of a law that really doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I got through. She said they don't REGISTER births from out of state. Period.

REGISTER.

Look at your info carefully, redhatty. For one thing, Hawaii RS 338-17.8 is a 1982 law. Obama wasn't born at that time. What they said about foreign country births is NOT that they REGISTER them, but they will amend them (with supporting evidence of the change) and FILE them.

Source

I realize that TODAY they do not register births from out of state, but in 1961 when they were still a territory, they did. They also registered foreign births back then and issued a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth.

After all this time, we seem to be going backwards. Today's laws are not the applicable laws, the laws in effect in 1961 ARE the applicable laws.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by redhatty

 

I think it is you that is mixing me up with others. I have not been arguing with you about a multitude of things that you have been arguing with me about. All I have been trying to convey is that this lady is not lying, and that she clearly did all of this and made this statements to quiet down all of the unsubstantiated claims.

And I never said she was lying. All I've stressed is that what many people *think* she said is not in fact what was said. There has been a HUGE media spin placed on the statement.

reply to post by redhatty


You tell me. What was she saying then? Why bother doing the investigation and then coming out to talk?

Either she was lying and/or being deceptive, or she was clearly attempting to vindicate Obama, correct?

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I got through. She said they don't REGISTER births from out of state. Period.

REGISTER.

Look at your info carefully, redhatty. For one thing, Hawaii RS 338-17.8 is a 1982 law. Obama wasn't born at that time. What they said about foreign country births is NOT that they REGISTER them, but they will amend them (with supporting evidence of the change) and FILE them.

Source

I realize that TODAY they do not register births from out of state, but in 1961 when they were still a territory, they did. They also registered foreign births back then and issued a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth.

After all this time, we seem to be going backwards. Today's laws are not the applicable laws, the laws in effect in 1961 ARE the applicable laws.

Just wanted to clarify something...Hawaii became a state in 1959. Not sure if that changes anything but it was a state before he was born.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Damn, didn't even notice this.

Knowing that, redhatty, you must think that Obama was born there. His mother couldn't register him there if he was born anywhere else, he produced a COLB from there, the lady from the state department of health says they have his birth certificate, and it's valid.

Knowing what we know now, we must come to a consensus on the claim.


If they have the record, Obama must have been born there. This means, if he wasn't born there, then the COLB must be a fake and the woman from the state department of health must be a liar.

Can we all agree on that? Just sick of people saying things and there is no claim to defend against.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Did she say they do not register births from out of state now or that they didn't register births from out of state in 1961? The laws have changed a few times since Obama's birth and I believe that is what redhatty has been trying to say. So while they may not do that now, back in 1961 they did according to the laws I have read.

M1ck, she said that they have a valid BC for Obama on record, that's all she said, she did not in any way say tht it contained the same information as the COLB posted on the web. You can't get around that part no matter how hard you try. Is she lying, NO. Nothing in the official statement can be perceived as a lie, nor can it be perceived as confirmation of the COLB posted on the web. Period.

And before you go backwards yet again, I will refresh you ...

As I posted here the statement is a non-statement, that is my opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

As I posted here, all the court cases (see topic thread) are mute, because NO COURT has subject matter jurisdiction

And as I posted somewhere else in the multiple threads on this subject...

The best evidence for proof of birth is the original typewritten LONG-FORM Certificate of Live Birth (CLOB) prepared in 1961 and not some computer-generated form.

For evidentiary purposes, the SHORT FORM of the CLOB is merely prima facie but not the conclusive proof of birth.

The Short Form is the secondary evidence because it is sourced out of an original document which is the Long Form.

So which is the best evidence - the “derived” document or the “source” document?

The mere fact that the short form is DERIVED out of some other document means that the source document is the Best Evidence.

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM or “vault” copy of the birth certificate.

The document that shows the weight at birth, the doctor the hospital the REAL PROOF OF BIRTH that is considered by law as the BEST EVIDENCE.

The ''short form'' and the ''long form'' do not have the same probative value.

The right of privacy of the individual (with respect to his proof of citizenship) is ipso facto waived in favor of proving that he is constitutionally qualified for run for the Presidency which requires him to be a natural born citizen.

When a candidate runs for public office he files an application for candidacy, and this is a public instrument for review by the public.

When the office requires a specific requirement which in this case is “natural born citizenship,” then the candidate must prove he is qualified.

The burden of proof lies with the candidate. In case of doubt as to the candidate’s qualifications, the latter must provide the evidence, the best evidence.

The best evidence of proof of birth is the LONG FORM or vault certificate which is the actual document signed by doctor, the parents or witnesses giving the time of birth, the weight at birth, the hospital where he was born.

The SHORT FORM, while useful in most instance, is still a secondary evidence and not the primary or best evidence of birth.

The SHORT FORM is a computer-generated document and can be assailed anytime when a proper inquiry is required. The SHORT FORM is a “derived” document. It is derived from the LONG FORM or vault copy.

The filing of candidacy being public, the supporting documents such as proof of natural born citizenship must be provided and also becomes public. The private individual, by running for public office, ipso facto, waives his privacy with respect to the specific instrument that proves his natural born citizenship.

Basic in remedial law: Mere tolerance of evidence (short form) does not elevate it to best evidence status precisely when the authenticity of the best evidence (LONG FORM) is being questioned.

Obama, as a graduate attorney and licensed by the State of Illinois, has been trained in the RULES OF EVIDENCE, passed the Illinois Bar, and knows all of this.

Attorneys are trained in this.

Why is he not coming forward with sufficient and better evidence of citizenship to shift his CITIZENSHIP issue into a CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY, CORRECTNESS, VERIFICATION and CONFIRMATION?

Edit to fix tags

[edit on 12/15/08 by redhatty]

reply to post by redhatty


Because he doesn't need to. No one has provided any evidence other than, "Why doesn't he come forward to prove his innocence." The answer is simple, he doesn't have to. Why would he provide any more assurance, only to have people say it's fake and provide more fuel for the fire?

Both his selective service card and COLB have been falsely scrutinized as fake, and people still believe it. Why should he bother himself continuing until a lawsuit or act of Congress forces him to?

There is absolutely no reason why Hawaii would have his vaulted Birth Certificate unless he was born there. As BH previously showed, when he was born, people could in fact NOT register their children that are born in another country in Hawaii.

So, what exactly was she verifying that they had? If she is verifying they have something, what is that something she is verifying?

If it didn't say he was born there (and that's just humoring your argument since I have no idea what document they would have that says he wasn't born there), why would she say the accusations are ridiculous and that she is trying to calm them down?

Since when is the Associated Press in the business of spinning and lying? Can you find many other articles based around spin by them? As far as I was aware, the Associated Press just takes the raw facts and reports them, then other people base their spin off of that.

You can call it what you want to, but you have no reason to believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii other than he hasn't given sufficient evidence in your opinion, and in my opinion, that's a lame reason.