Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB
Another case that had been flying under the radar was Keyes v. Lingle, where the Constitution Party and Dr. Amb. Alan Keyes were petitioning against Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, Chief Elections Officer Kevin B. Cronin, and various other Defendants as a means of holding an official accountable for determining Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility.
Documentation:
You will notice that the case was dismissed on a technicality (according to the judge, the Plaintiffs referred to the wrong Hawaiian statute(s)), not on content.
However, the bigger story to this lawsuit is the fact that forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (pictured) has documented in an associated affidavit (PDF) the following:
2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.
4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. [emphasis mine]
The above clearly illustrates that it is impossible to determine eligibility based on the widely-circulated certification of live birth and that the only way to determine Barack Hussein Obama’s natural born citizenship status is to retrieve the currently-sealed certificate of live birth.
It appears that we’re dealing with an individual who has so much to hide on so little a document.
Update: A couple of other articles related to this posting:
- BAD SCIENCE: HOW NOT TO DO IMAGE ANALYSIS PART II (HackerFactor.com)
- Hawaii officials declare Obama birth certificate genuine (HonoluluAdvertiser.com; old article stating a relatively obvious assertion: BHOII’s original certificate is real and sealed)
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- HI COLB: Verified Non-Credentials versus (Partially) Unverified Credentials
- Eligibility Update: Why Eligibility is Questioned; IL, TX Grand Juries; Update: Dual Citizenship on Obama
- Certifigate: Kenyan BR “Likely Not Authentic;” Birth in Kenya Not Ruled Out
- Dunham v. Obama: Document Confirms Fatherhood, FactCheck.org UK-Kenyan Colonial Law
- This Week in the Courts
Jim D,
So far, it’s all the same as was previously reported here.
-Phil
Jim D,
Yup, I’ve been following InvestigatingObama’s work on that this evening as well.
Personally, I’d prefer to wait to post anything until there’s something in hand.
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
The divorce decree, which I saw on line, does not indicate birth places for either the daughter or Obama II. ALso, reportedly 4 pages of decree are missing and Hale is, via his PI, trying to procure those pages.????????????
Hey, Phil
Out of curiosity, tuned into Plains Radio Network (Ed Hale) tonight. He’s still trying to raise $ to meet investigation costs. I gather from his commentary, which is sometimes confusing and overly exhuberant, that he knows where the birth certificate is,and that it isn’t in Hawaii; says it can be obtained, and that the PI (with enough financial support) will be able to procure straightaway. No indication as to where the bc is or how soon it can be procured. He also joyously asserted several times during the brief time I listened that he can prove that Obama was born in Kenya. Apparently, proof to that effect will be forthcoming shortly. It’a all very mysterious and, frankly, not all that convincing. But,again out of curiosity, I will periodically monitor developments. “Investigating Obama” is also closely monitoring these developments. Let’s hope the monitoring is justified.
Dennis,
While I do agree that Barack Hussein Obama should show is “vault” copy certificate of live birth, it is highly unlikely that what Mr. Ed Hale at Plains Radio has will indicate anything about Barack Hussein Obama II being born in Kenya.
Instead, you will probably find what I posted here.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
the very fact he does not show an actual tangible doctrine is THE BIGGEST FRAUD TO START…. to day 1 02 2009 plains radio network hopefully will present the obama sr vs DUNHAM divorce papers where it is stated they had common property together…a native son born in KENYA.. younger than 18…….wait and see.. hope the info. is TRUE….
[...] Source [...]
Many thoughtful people have suggested that the SCOTUS will only act after the political process has run its course. In the meantime, you can contact your congressional representatives and urge them to object to Obama’s qualifications on January 8, when the Electoral College’s votes are counted and the election is certified. One member of the House and one member of the Senate are needed to stop the process and cause an investigation by Congress.
7-days Everybody-
Much can be done
Call the Senators-leave a message
Get their numbers at http://www.senate.gov
Tell them:
1) They must uphold their Oath and the Constitution
2) Obama is Constitutionally ineligible as he was not born to “American Citizens” as his father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of birth.
3.They must Object to the certification of the Electoral Vote on Jan 8 or suffer the political consequences at the end of their terms for not upholding their Oath of Office and failing to defend the Constitution
Seven days-much can be done in that time!
Happy New Year-
Justin-there is no way to “compel” someone to do anything unless you have jurisdiction over them. The way you get jurisdiction over them is to initiate a lawsuit and you must have “standing” which is a vast and complex problem in this area.
As to “natural born citizen” there is no question that not being born to “American citizens” per the case law (dicta) and the Senate Resolution 511 clearly excludes Obama by his own admissions. The Obama people are just running interference with this trying to deflect to the citizenship issue etc., to mean born on American soil therefore the birth certificate is all thats needed etc.,
I believe that Obama and the DNC are liable for False Pretenses as a matter of law as they have caused by knowing false representations caused persons to transfer property in this case money to them without any other proof necessary and bringing this cause of action would by necessity cause Obama to have to prove he is a natural born citizen, because on its face he is not so the case could not be dismissed-it would have to go to trial. However, the only obstacle is-you would have to find an Obama or DNC donor who wanted a refund of their donation due to the transfer of money based upon a false representation of legal eligibility-the fact that he is the nominee would not be relevant as the subsequent action could not remedy the violation. (ie even if you return stolen goods-you still committed the theft)
Another dumb s— that won’t be re-elected. This is the part I love, re-election. Guess what, we are coming back fighting & in the end, you will be at the bottom. We the people put you dumb s—, lying, cheating losers in office, and we can take you out.
[edited for language]
The Jan 12 issue of the Globe has a center feature article titled Obama Presidency Illegal and an associated poll at: NoCitizenObama@globefl.com
Yes, POLARIK, great job and we all need to say KUDOS to you!!!!!! THANK YOU!
I don’t believe there are any active cases arguing this issue. The two that were, Donofrio v. Wells and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, died after being mishandled in the US Supreme Court (Donofrio was the attorney on the Wrotnowski case). Donofrio made a very strong constitutional argument, but also a critical procedural mistake. I would like to know if there is another case arguing that Obama is disqualified merely by having a foreign father.
I think this is all a moot point. There is only one legal scholar I’ve heard who doesn’t think “natural born” means having BOTH parents as citizens. All other attorneys are arguing BOTH parents need to be US citizens. Since we know BO’s father wasn’t a US citizen, it doesn’t matter about the BC. But then the Constitution doesn’t define “natural born” either.
This is the best alternative to chaos.
Black Female Army Captain says:
December 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If my theory is right in the “Is Ralph Nader Our President?” article, then both the DNC and the RNC, through their negligence in vetting both Obama and McCain made the biggest “goof” in history.
The above WAS NOT a “goof”….their actions were INTENTIONAL! PERIOD! Obama was “selected” for POTUS.
Thank you, on numerous levels. (And what better gift for Obama than McCain, the latest in a long trail of gift-opponents for BHO — he seems to have “some kind of” anointing.)
It appears to me that the Supreme Court of Hawaii was correct in its decision. There is a state statute that expressly addresses how and when a party or candidate on a presidential ballot can challenge the eligibility of another candidate. Under the Constitution, the state legislature has the sole power to make the rules as to how that state elects its electors. The state courts can rule on disputes about the application of the rules, but cannot ignore or change them. This was one of the reasons the US Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court in Gore v. Bush. Judicial restraint should be applauded.
Keyes’s next move should be to file in Federal Court. As I understand the District Court’s ruling in Berg v. Obama, which found that Berg did not have standing to bring the suit, Keyes would have standing as a party directly affected by Obama’s ineligibility.
Jean:
I discussed the reason for the blackout of the Certificate Number back in June on my blog, The Greater Evil (polarik.blogtownhall.com). It is also in my final report, Obama’s born Conspiracy, which I encourage you to read.
The Certificate Number is comprised of the Form type (151 is used for both the Certificate of Live Birth and Certification of Live Birth), the year of birth (which is 1961, or alleged to be), and lastly a CHRONOLOGICAL & SEQUENTIAL INDEX which is reset every subsequent birth year and increments each time a birth registration is processed from January 1 until December 31 for that birth year.
HOWEVER, Hawaii accepted LATE BIRTH REGISTRATIONS meaning that any birth registration requested after December 31 of the birth year would receive whatever was the NEXT AVAILABLE CERTIFICATE NUMBER, and definitely would not be a number less than the number of births recorded for that year.
Now, IMHO, the reason why it was redacted on the alleged “scan” image, but allegedly shown as 010641 in the phony Factcheck photos, is that Obama’s birth registration was, in fact, a late one, and would not have a number less than 14,000 (approx. the number of births for 1961 that actually were recorded during 1961). I believe that if you looked up birth record #151 1961-10641, you would find someone who is now deceased!
Seeing as how none has ever seen any evidence of Obama’s real birth record, why not just borrow the certificate number from someone you know who really was born in Hawaii in 1961, or even from someone deceased who won’t have much use for it anymore. I’m sure that Obama could have picked one up on his trip to Hawaii prior to August 21 — the date that Factcheck posted their phony photos.
As i have maintained throughout my four months of research, from June to September, there was never a real, paper Certification of Live Birth made from Obama’s birth record.
And, I can tell you that Maya’s COLB was not used for the forgery. That was the categorically, false theory of the now, discredited Techdude, whom I exposed as a fraud a full month before his “Exclusive Forgery Report” was published on July 20 of this year.
It also cannot be Maya’s COLB because the year of birth would be wrong and the number would point to someone living who could identify it.
There were approximately 14,000 births in 1961, and #10,641 is bit low for someone allegedly born on August 4th as far fewer babies are born in the last quarter of the year than the second and third quarters.
Jean, the ultimate source for all things related to Obama’s COLB (and everyone else’s COLB) is my 160-page (printed), fully illustrated report at polarik.blogtownhall.com
FYI, Not only was I the very first person to identify and demonstrate that the online COLB is a forgery, I was the only one to prove that Factcheck’s photos are also fraudulent forgeries.
The coup de grace, as far as Obama’s COLB being bogus with a capital “B”, is the fact that the Seal pictured on Obama’s COLB, allegedly printed in 2007, is not the Seal that appears on real 2007 COLBs (BTW, it was the borders found on real 2007 COLBs that sunk TechDude’s dingy).
The cold, hard facts in this case seem not dissuade the Obamatons who insist that the online COLB is proof of his US citizenship, his natural-born status, and everything else connected with the Obama legend. The facts have also not deterred my detractors who were (and maybe still are) desperate to prove me wrong. Yet, their best (and last) great hope was someone (with “impeccable credentials”) who claimed to have “debunked” my final report — which would have been an incredible feat, seeing as how he never read it. Techdude also had “impeccable credentials” — except that he stole them from someone else.
As far as forensic document experts go, Sandra Lines is the real deal, folks, and they don’t come any better. When it comes to the field of COLB research, I’m all alone here, and that is why I am thankful to Sandra for giving her stamp of approval to my work.
The bottom line is that, regardless of who this all plays out, a deliberate, premeditated act of fraud was committed bwhen this false identification document was created and passed off as “Obama’s original birth certificate” (and still is, according to Obama’s own website), for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public into believing that Obama is a natural-born US citizen and, therefore, is Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.
There were many people who were complicit in planning and committing this act of fraud — and what better way to shield oneself from scrutiny than to call this fraud a “right-wing conspiracy voiced by a few sore loser, nut-jobs wearing tin-foil hats?”
Now, I cannot say that any formal changes will ever come from this online COLB conspiracy — yes, it is a bonafide conspiracy. It may be swept under the rug and forgotten, and the ones behind this little charade may never be known. Yet, I don’t hear as many people pointing fingers and laughing now as compared to the number I heard back in June when I began this research.
In fact, I now see hundreds of thousands of new fingers being wagged in the direction of Obama, and it means that I helped to enlighten others.
Dtx,
Have you posted this info on Orly Taitz’s website http://drorly.blogspot.com or AIP http://www.aipnews.com ?
Just another travesty of justice perpetrated by the government of Hawaii on the people of the United States.
All right thinking people should cross Hawaii off their list of possible vacation destinations.
I’d rather go to Cuba, at least they’re no pretension there about justice or freedom.
If my theory is right in the “Is Ralph Nader Our President?” article, then both the DNC and the RNC, through their negligence in vetting both Obama and McCain made the biggest “goof” in history.
The above WAS NOT a “goof”….their actions were INTENTIONAL! PERIOD! Obama was “selected” for POTUS.
The motion to reconsider was dismissed on 12 December.
More than likely the only step after this would be appeal to the US supreme court
Phil,
I’d just like to point out that until last week, your statement was absolutely true. But with the finding of the Hawaii documents, we now have party officials who are responsible for swearing under oath that their candidate is true.
Those documents are affidavits, containing a jurat, and if they were falsely sworn, then perjury or false swearing has been committed. I’m not saying that this is the case, because proving perjury is nearly impossible, but my overall point is that we now have the names and titles of those who were responsible for ensuring that the candidates were eligible.
Dtx,
I hope someone will latch on to this idea. So far this find has been met with deafening silence. I’m working with several people to determine whether or not there’s any legal way we can extract information from these individuals, but I’m not sure there is.
If there are any legal types out there, I have a question: is there any way to compel an individual who has signed an affidavit to prove that the statements they have made is true? If so, we have a clear avenue to all the documents you’ve sought, because there’s no way to prove natural born status other than an original birth certificate (to the best of my knowledge).
Ian,
I couldn’t agree more. Our problem right now is that our efforts are too difuse (sp?). We need to come together as a body, and exercise significant pressure on particular individuals or institutions.
One way to think of it is that we are each a gnat – when one of us hits the system, we’re hardly noticed. But when we come together, we become a swarm, and we’re certain to be noticed at that point.
My question is, who has the ability to bring this swarm together?
Ian Thorpe,
Excellent point and definitely what the conservative activist is to be all about. Passive, lawful resistance to the status quo.
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
Hi Wendy in Texas,
In asking wil nobody defent the constitution you ask a good question. I think the answer is “no” because to defent the constitution at this stage would expose the incompetence and corrupt nature of the political establishment.
I have said before to bloggers questioning Obama’s elegibility that the courts and judicial process cannot be relied on. What is needed is a campaign of passive resistance of the kind the profoundly ignorant “intellectual” Obama credited Martin Luther King with origination (in fact it was Gandhi)
If many people pursue a policy of non co-operation with government not by breaking laws but by abiding by them to the letter, by querying government documents, asking for explanations and clarifications of written comuications, generally by simply clogging up the system it is easy to bring government to a standstill.
That way they will have to sit up and take notice.
best regards,
Ian Thorpe
Jean,
Simply put, the parties allow the candidates, per se, to self-ascribe themselves as being eligible for, say, the office of the President. A big, huge catch-22 that Justin Riggs @ yourfellowcitizen.com has been going about investigating for several months now (I’ve been tracking that via my Initiatives category here).
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
This entire situation with the courts and our representatives blatantly ignoring the Constitution and blatantly disregarding their sworn duties while they openly pander to this socialist media created “Obama” is just getting ridiculous!
And I’m getting really sick of it!
Where in the world are the true Americans, in actual positions of responsibility, who are willing to stand up and say ENOUGH?
It sure does look like the “fix” is in.
Does Soros have something on all these people or is someone else using something against all these “representatives” so that they are willingly sliding past the Constitution and hoping to get Obama in before anyone can do anything?
And unfortunately, all these thousands of letters everyone is sending are accomplishing nothing and are being being ignored, even by the press, as being just moonbats pursuing a crazy conspiracy theory.
All we’re after is having a few, very simple questions answered, that will easily prove to uphold the actual law that our nation is supposedly based on.
Is that really nuts?
It shouldn’t be this hard.
Why won’t any of our judiciary just use common sense and order the documentation that would establish the validity of Obama’s presidency? After all, subpoenas are issued every day for much less, with much less at stake and certainly with much less lawful basis. I mean, come on, the guy’s own published words state that he was born with dual citizenship, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, that his stepfather was Indonesian, that he attended college on scholarship…..
Fine, so let’s order the release of the BC, the passport records, the college admission records, the adoption records – and let’s clear this up with openness and honesty – REAL openness and REAL honesty for a change.
Didn’t even Obama himself promise “transparency”?
Just what the hell IS going on here???!!!
Is this really the AMERICAN judicial system or some third world farce?
This BS is getting really old, and they all seem to be trying every trick in the book just to get by until January 20th.
There is no logic on why the MSM won’t comment on the Obama eligiblity issue? And, it is mind boggling on why won’t the Senators and Reps stand up over this issue? In a recent post, I think I provide a plausible answer. Please read “Is Ralph Nader Our President?” http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-ralph-nader-our-president
The following two articles also question the eligiblility of Sen. John McCain’s eligiblity to be POTUS, they were published in the Michigan Law Review. They are long, but well worth the read.
Why Senator John McCain Can’t Be President?http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot
and
Originalism and The Natural Born Citizen Clause
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/originalism-and-the-natural
If my theory is right in the “Is Ralph Nader Our President?” article, then both the DNC and the RNC, through their negligence in vetting both Obama and McCain made the biggest “goof” in history. It appears that both parties, placed an “ineligible” candidate, on the Presidential ballot. Furthermore, unless both Obama and McCain went through a “Naturalization” process, it is highly probable that both men are actually illegal aliens.
How do you think America, a global superpower, would be perceived by other Countries if this was actually the case? Maybe this is why the MSM and no one from the Democratic or Republican side is talking about any of these issues. Something to think about.
I would be interested in hearing your comments.
I noticed that Obama’s BC has “Date Filed by Registra”.
On some of the other Hawaii BC’c they have “Date Accepted”
Townhall.com – The Greater Evil
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
Dan Smith
I think this is really important. One phrase in her report mentions “best available evidence”.
1. The COLB form posted by Obama supporters is not authentic.
Very poor evidence.
2. The only other evidence was a newspaper announcement.
Very poor evidence.
3. His younger sister who could not have witnessed anything about his birth say he was born in Hawaii but doesn’t seem sure of what hospital.
Not really evidence at all.
Right now Obama’s Kenyan Grandmother sworn affidavit of his being born in Kenya trumps all of the above.
The “best available evidence” is the Birth Certificate reported to be on file in Hawaii.
There will be a push by those who follow legal protocol to obtain the “best available evidence” and make a decision based on that evidence.
Let me go out on a limb here. I don’t see how the SCOTUS can avoid ordering Obama to provide the “best available evidence” for their decision making process.
and here is the section the Court says covers this issue …
Quote:§11-113 Presidential ballots. (a) In presidential elections, the names of the candidates for president and vice president shall be used on the ballot in lieu of the names of the presidential electors, and the votes cast for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the presidential electors and alternates nominated by each political party.
(b) A “national party” as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates’ names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates’ names off the ballot completely.
(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.
(2) In the case of candidates of parties or groups not qualified to place candidates on the primary or general election ballots, the person desiring to place the names on the general election ballot shall file with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election:
(A) A sworn application which shall include the information required under paragraph (1)(A) and (B), and (C) where applicable;
(B) A petition which shall be upon the form prescribed and provided by the chief election officer containing the signatures of currently registered voters which constitute not less than one per cent of the votes cast in the State at the last presidential election. The petition shall contain the names of the candidates, a statement that the persons signing intend to support those candidates, the address of each signatory, the date of the signer’s signature and other information as determined by the chief election officer.
Prior to being issued the petition form, the person desiring to place the names on the general election ballot shall submit a notarized statement from each candidate of that person’s intent to be a candidate for President or Vice President of the United States on the general election ballot in the State of Hawaii. Such statements may be withdrawn by a prospective candidate for Vice President and an alternative candidate for Vice President be substituted anytime prior to the notification of qualification or disqualification provided in subsection (d). Any such substitutions shall be accompanied by a notice of substitution satisfying subparagraph (A), a statement of intent as required by this paragraph, and a letter by the candidate for President endorsing the substitute candidate for Vice President. Upon receipt of a notice of substitution and all other required documents, the substitute shall replace the original candidate for Vice President on the general election ballot. The petitions issued in the names of the original candidates will remain valid for the purposes of this section.
(d) Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant’s or candidate’s eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.
(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.
This is the section the Court claims is ruling … in the case of this suit this is a simply ridiculous interpretation …
This paragraph is clear … it applies to an individual candidate right to challenge finding on THEIR OWN eligibility:
…. Each applicant and the candidates named
…. shall be notified in writing of THE applicant’s or candidate’s eligibility or disqualification
… if the applicant … or … any … party, individual or group WITH A CANDIDATE on the presidential ballot
… OBJECTS to the finding of eligibility or disqualification
… the person may … file a request for hearing …
The Statute again clearly applies to each specific applicant and their candidate individually – it provides each individual applicant and candidate make application – receive an individual response on THEIR eligibility and have a right to challenge THEIR OWN eligibility determination …
The reason they played this game is clear … there is a time bar in this statute … by ignoring 11-172 – which clearly allows a challenge of this sort AND which allows 20 days after the election to file it …. and twisting the law to apply 11-113 they effectively eliminate the challenge entirely on a technicality … as 11-113 require the complaint be filed within 5 days after the “finding” of eligibility or disqualification …
11-172 once again CLEARLY allows this challenge … the Court would be fully within its power to so find – and hear this on its merits … instead once again a Court dismisses on a technicality a case it COULD HAVE HEARD on its merits
This just gets stranger and stranger … a complete unwillingness to address these cases on their merits … which is the very foundation of the Court system …
Hawaii’s Court in the Keyes suit yet AGAIN uses a DIFFERENT technicality to dismiss the suit … instead of hearing it on the merits – which the Court has the absolute right to do ….
Quote:ORDER OF DISMISSAL
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Complaint to Contest the 2008 Presidential Election submitted by Plaintiffs Constitution Party and Alan L. Keyes, the Motion to Dismiss submitted by Defendants Governor Linda L. Lingle and Chief Election Officer Kevin B. Cronin, it appears the Plaintiffs style the complaint as an election contest brought pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §§ 11-172 and 11-174.5, but allege, in pertinent part, that Defendant Cronin failed to require proof that candidate Barack Obama was qualified to be a candidate for President of the United States. Any challenge to the Chief Election Officer’s finding of eligibility of a presidential candidate in the State of Hawai‘i must be pursued in accordance with HRS § 11-113(e), not sections 11-172 and 11-174.5. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed.
Because Keyes actually DOES have standing they have to find a different excuse ….
Quote:§11-172 Contests for cause; generally. With respect to any election, any candidate, or qualified political party directly interested, or any thirty voters of any election district, may file a complaint in the supreme court.
The complaint shall set forth any cause or causes, such as but not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or underages, that could cause a difference in the election results. The complaint shall also set forth any reasons for reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the precinct officials or the officials at a counting center in an election using the electronic voting system. A copy of the complaint shall be delivered to the chief election officer or the clerk in the case of county elections.
The complaint on eligibility specifically meets these requirements
Quote:§11-174.5 Contests for cause in general, special general, special, and runoff elections. (a) In general, special general, special, or runoff elections, the complaint shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the twentieth day following the general, special general, special, or runoff election and shall be accompanied by a deposit for costs of court as established by rules of the supreme court. The clerk shall issue to the defendants named in the complaint a summons to appear before the supreme court not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after service thereof.
(b) In cases involving general, special general, special, or runoff elections the complaint shall be heard by the supreme court in which the complaint was filed as soon as it reasonably may be heard. On the return day, the court, upon its motion or otherwise, may direct summons to be issued to any person who may be interested in the result of the proceedings.
At the hearing, the court shall cause the evidence to be reduced to writing and shall give judgment, stating all findings of fact and of law. The judgment may invalidate the general, special general, special, or runoff election on the grounds that a correct result cannot be ascertained because of a mistake or fraud on the part of the precinct officials; or decide that a certain candidate, or certain candidates, received a majority or plurality of votes cast and were elected. If the judgment should be that the general, special general, special, or runoff election was invalid, a certified copy thereof shall be filed with the governor, and the governor shall duly call a new election to be held not later than one hundred twenty days after the judgment is filed. If the court shall decide which candidate or candidates have been elected, a copy of that judgment shall be served on the chief election officer or county clerk, who shall sign and deliver to the candidate or candidates certificates of election, and the same shall be conclusive of the right of the candidate or candidates to the offices.
Nothing in 11-174.5 that excludes this claim …
Dr. Keyes,
Sue Nanaci Peloci, Germond, Schatz, Matusow and DNC re: Hawaii Certification of candidates ?
See PDF below(@ http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2196 )
of DNC Candidate Confirmation Documents Signed by the above stating they Obama and Biden are “legal qualified” Candidates to serve as Pres & VPres.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2196
Candidate Qualification: Hawaii, South Carolina Certifications
Submitted by Phil on Mon, Dec 22, 2008
Justin Rigg’s continued work at yourfellowcitizen.com (highlights tracked here) keeps getting closer to the question of who, exactly, is responsible for qualifying candidates for federal office. As Justin comments concerning the Hawaiian paperwork:
There’s a law in Hawaii that states that the political party MUST declare their candidates as eligible:
HRS 11-113
(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.
So now I have answers to two of my three questions, for both parties.
1) Who was responsible for ensuring these candidates were qualified? For the Republicans, it was John Boehner, Jean Inman, and Willes Lee. For the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Alice Travis Germond, Brian E. Schatz, and Lynne Matusow.
2) When were the candidates certified as eligible? For the Republicans, September 4th of 2008. For the Democrats, the 28th of August. (Which makes me wonder about the 60 day provision of the statute).
3) What evidence was presented by the candidates that allowed for a determination of eligibility to be made? WELL, NOW WE KNOW WHO TO ASK!
PDF documentation:
Hawaii Political Party Documentation
Obama South Carolina SOS Response
One question that has always been on my mind is why did Obama black out the COLB certification number? It can not be used to steal anyone’s identity. Of course, the claim was made that the number was redacted because they weren’t sure if it could be used in identity theft. Come on, get real. Who is going to impersonate BO? Whatever the case, if the number was redacted, who has a copy with the actual number? Is it the DNC? If the number was redacted prior to giving it to the DNC, then the COLB is void, because it was altered and therefore, could not be used to prove eligibility. I am still of the belief that Obama’s posted COLB and the redacted number belonged to his Sister Maya. And, it was her doctored original COLB that was posted on the Daily Kos and Fight the Smears. If that is NOT the case, why not release the certification number. Surely, this would provide some evidentiary value. Maybe the attorneys should be asking for the unredacted photocopy with the COLB number. At the very least, you can compare the COLB’s that were printed with the preceding and following numbers to make certain that the COLB’s that those documents would closely match the year of birth that Obama was born. I would assume that the number matches the dates/year that Maya was born. And, what would it mean if the preceding and following COLB certification numbers were actually COLB’s for births that occurred oversees? Maybe more conclusive information could be gathered just from the COLB before January 20th.
http://www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com
I know that Obama was to meet with Gov. Lingle during his Hawaii visit. Hmmm? It seems like every time Obama visits Hawaii, something else happens with the BC.
I take it that this was dismissed without prejudice so that they can refile it with the correct statute? I would assume that is the case, in that a dismissal is presumed to be without prejudice unless stated that it is….
Lady Impact,
An even better question is the following:
Why hasn’t Dr. Taitz been talking about Keyes v. Lingle in similar fashion as other cases?
Why has this case been under the proverbial radar until now?
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
The InfoBro,
Simply put, all that the PDF purports is that Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines certifies the various paragraphs as stated therein. Clearly, this affidavit does not go into all of the particulars of what brought Ms. Lines to her conclusions; personally, I’m not privy to such detailed information at this time.
Nevertheless, if you have yet to see it, “Dr. Ron Polarik” did have a very interesting report of which Ms. Lines affirms the findings. I’m not saying this is what she was specifically looking at, but I am saying she affirms the report’s findings.
Having said all that, you are correct in that she is but one expert with an opinion. However, I have personally not seen anywhere where a similar expert is willing to go on the record and inversely affirm that anything Barack Hussein Obama has released to date is essentially “good enough” for “natural born citizen” determination purposes. In fact, if you read the original PDFs from Berg v. Obama, you will notice that the Defense takes the mere stance of, “of course Barack Obama is a natural born citizen;” you will not find anywhere any Defendant explicitly citing any verifiable documentation that supports Obama’s eligibility.
Not only this, but if you research through the various eligibility lawsuits that have been denied or dismissed to date, you will find that they have been done so based on the technicality of, say, the Secretary of State isn’t responsible for vetting candidates or, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Supremes simply weren’t going to “stay” the Electoral College from voting, as such a Legislative procedure is, by definition, a constitutionally-mandated behavior. None have yet to be denied based on the content of their cases.
The fact that the Democratic National Committee in that case expressly denied that Philip Berg had any standing on account of there being no laws concerning validating eligibility (a serious catch-22 technicality if one ever saw one) was the key point that made me think that there was something up with all of this.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
[Originally commented by Poppet in a different posting]
Impressive Credential’s! Let’s hope they get put to
good use and that she can testify.
As far as the Hawaii Statutes are concerned it would
be difficult to pick the one’s that would apply.
It’s possible Obama was adopted, or maybe Obama Sr.
was not the biological father. That is why a “Full Investigation
should be done “under all statutes that might apply”.
Read or Glance at many of the Laws on Hawaii Statutes:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
Case Notes
Compulsory reporting not objectionable. 466 F. Supp. 714.
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §19; RL 1955, §57-18; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-15; am L 1972, c 66, §1(1); am L 1997, c 305, §2]
Attorney General Opinions
Section provides for the alteration of only birth certificates. Att. Gen. Op. 84-14.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]
§338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons. (a) The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(B) Sex;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and
(4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
§338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.
(b) Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [L 1911, c 96, §1; am L 1923, c 246, §1; RL 1925, §196; am L 1927, c 202, §1; RL 1935, §7610; RL 1945, §12910; am L 1951, c 132, §1; RL 1955, §57-40; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §9; am L 1965, c 96, §39; HRS §338-41; am L 1970, c 11, §1; am L 1972, c 66, §1(4)]
Case Notes
Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258.
Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69.
(Some of these statutes should be included in the Lawsuit’s to show how simple it was to get a Hawaii BC)
It seems to me that Hawaii BC only applies to the Territory,
or “State” of Hawaii….338-41 (b) ……… Dan Smith
I have added your information to Obama Timeline … I’ll be back for more.
Absolutely astounding! Where is the rage?
Not withstanding the obvious attempt to achieve legitimacy via the auspices of a forensic document examiner, it seems to me to be a complete contrivance of your imagination. Anyone could attest to the facts offered in the affidavit of the examiner at issue. Some brief but salient points:
- A digital document, i.e., PDF, GIF89a, J-PEG; is subject to digital manipulation that can not be detected on visual examination.
- Citation of reprodution or presentation of a digital document is not certification nor does it render any authenticity or additional integrity that can be relied upon for forensic examination.
- Any purported reproduction of artifacts related to a scanned document are a demonstration of the scanning parameters at the time of acquisition.
In short, the opinions of examiners concerning the state of authenticity in lieu of an examination of acquisition integrity is farce on its face. Why pursue this course of action? Why have not other claims of “natural-born” status been questioned despite claims in the affirmative. It seems this is motivated not out of concern that the electorate has been defrauded but rather base political motives. Although I disagree with your opinions and conclusions, I respect your claim. Please, prove me wrong as to my suspicions of your motivation.
So where does this lead us? What, how or who is going to act on this? BO will just trot out his own forensic document examiner to refute this, just like on CSI. Why wasn’t this brought out 3 weeks ago before Electoral College vote, although it probably wouldn’t have made any difference. Someone would have to sue someone, somewhere, and probably get nowhere. Am not trying to be pessimistic, but realistic.
Couldn’t we (ALL OF US) join a class action lawsuit to challenge BO’s eligibility? I possess to legalese, so I don’t know how the issue of standing would be addressed, but by weight of sheer numbers, maybe we could make a difference.
I’m in if anyone is interested.
Wendy in Texas
Once again, our court system is in violation of our Constitution.
We the people need to being a class action law suite against all those who oppose the removal of Obama from this election for going against our constitutional laws.
I wonder then, if the courts will step up to the plate and do their job and make him step down.
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2299 [...]