If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
STATE QUALIFICATION LAWS WERE NOT ENFORCED IN 2008
by Cynthia Wilson
(Oct. 12, 2010) — This editorial is pragmatic: Barack Hussein Obama has never provided any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents**. If he had, we would know. We do not know factually who BHO’s parents are, what his real name is, where he was born, nor when. Obama once said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”
Obama also said, “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead.” This statement is true, since he does not have a court-vetted U.S. birth certificate and it’s also a good distraction from his Article II ineligibility and failed 20th amendment qualifying.”
His birthplace is not the only question regarding his constitutional eligibility to serve.
We know McCain showed documents during the campaign to demonstrate his constitutional eligibility, which had been challenged before. BHO had never been vetted, and because he has failed to demonstrate any evidence of eligibility, the 20th amendment should have precluded him from assuming the presidency.
In many states, proof of eligibility is required for various offices, including the presidency. Since this documentation does not exist for BHO, the various state agencies responsible for balloting presidential candidates where specific proof of constitutional eligibility is required have failed to uphold their respective state laws. They have also failed the citizens of their states and the nation.
Others have reported that states have no requirement to qualify candidates for the office of President.
Below are several state laws which were not upheld in the case of BHO. In Hawaii, South Carolina and Texas, state laws require the Party to certify constitutional eligibility. In Texas and South Carolina, this was apparently done without any court-vetted documents. In Hawaii, it appears that the state Democratic Party refused to certify constitutional eligibility; therefore, Nancy Pelosi, as representative of the Democrat National Committee, signed a nomination form stating that Obama and Biden were qualified. However, that document was filed only in Hawaii; the other 49 states received a nomination form which did not contain the “constitutionally-eligible” language. It appears that Pelosi signed the Hawaii form without any court-vetted documents.
In Alabama, the Secretary of State certified the names of presidential candidates from all parties for the general election, but the form she signed mentioned nothing about eligibility. However, a 2007 certification form from the Alabama Democrat Party listed all of the Democrat presidential primary contenders, states that the candidates “filed qualifications:”
The body of the document reads:
Pursuant to Section 17-13-5, Code of Alabama, 1975, I hereby certify that the persons whose names appear below and on the following schedules filed qualifications with me for the February 5, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Election as candidates for the offices indicated.
President of the United States
Christopher J. Dodd
This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action as hereafter may appropriately be made.
Alabama Statute 17-13-5 is here.
In Arizona, the state statute requires proof of eligibility to be filed along with Nomination Papers, but there is no evidence that it was ever done.
1. Arizona: BHO Signed a Notarized Affidavit But Provided No Proof of Eligibility
Arizona: 16-311. Nomination papers; filing; definitions
All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.
On November 30, 2007, Obama signed an affidavit (pictured below) of constitutional eligibility, but according to recent research, did not include proof that he met constitutional requirements to serve. State Rep. Judy Burges’s recently-proposed bill to require proof of eligibility is not necessary, as Arizona already has eligibility requirements. That proposal, which did not pass the Arizona legislature in April 2010, states:
The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.
On September 27, 2010, a researcher contacted the Arizona Secretary of State at (602) 542-4285 and asked, “What documents were used to fulfill state statute 16-311 in regard to the presidential election in 2008?”
An eight-minute hold ensued, after which the researcher was told, “There was an affidavit that was filed.” The researcher asked, “By Barack Obama?” The answer was “Yes.”
The researcher then asked, “Was that all?” and the clerk answered, “Yes. If there was anything else it is across the street. It’s been two years; I can’t remember. Are you asking about some birth certificate? The media person, Matt Benson, will have to call.”
On September 28, 2010, Matt Benson called the researcher and left a message. The researcher returned the call at (602) 350-2834 and left a message. On September 30, Mr. Benson left a message, saying “I’m confused as to what documents (you’d) be looking for.” (Note: The AZ statute requires “facts sufficient to show that…the candidate will be qualified…”; “facts” require evidentiary support, and none was provided.)
On October 7, 2010, the researcher called Mr. Benson as a follow-up and asked, “Can we get specific information about the evidentiary support for ‘facts’ for 16-311? A person can’t attest to something they cannot witness, so they cannot swear an affidavit for place of their own birth as a ‘fact.'” Mr. Benson answered, “No other documents were provided besides Mr. Obama’s affadavit; candidates for office can self-attest to their eligibility by Arizona law.” The researcher asked where this was written. He then said, “I’ll have to talk to our attorney, and I will get back to you.”
Later that day the researcher received a letter from Mr. Benson to which was attached Mr. Obama’s sworn affidavit.
Mr. Benson wrote a letter stating that the applicable statute in this instance was:
ARS 16-242 Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper
A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:
1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.
2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.
3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate’s state committee.
4. The exact manner for printing the candidate’s name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.
B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.
Mr. Benson wrote: “As I indicated when we last spoke, Arizona law requires that candidates for local, state and federal office self-attest to their eligibility. I’ve attached the form that Mr. Obama submitted prior to Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election. Following the Democratic National Convention, the party filed additional forms with our office identifying Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.”
The researcher wrote to Mr. Benson about the omission of 16-311 for facts to be filed along with the nomination paper prescribed by 16-242, and a summary statement: “For my take-away, you’re (Mr. Benson) stating per ARS 16-311 that Barack Obama never provided to the Arizona Secretary of State any “facts sufficient to show…the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks; he presented only the personal affidavit portion. Correct me if I’m wrong. Thank-you.”
The researcher did not receive any correction from the Arizona Secretary of State’s office to this take-away statement. Apparently the Arizona Secretary of State, by tacet admission, agreed that ARS 16-311 was never upheld. No 16-311 Subsection A affidavit with sufficient proof of eligibility was ever provided, according to the Secretary of State’s office.
The 205 Arizona Code Revised, Statute 16-351, allows for challenges to eligibility of any candidate to be placed on the state ballot.
2. Hawaii Democratic Committee Failed to Certify Constitutional Eligibility; but the DNC did. What evidence did Nancy Pelosi use to sign the document?
Hawaii statute §11-113, Presidential ballots.
(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.
As opposed to all former Democratic candidates such as Gore and Kerry, the Hawaii Democratic Committee changed its customary wording in 2008 as required by Hawaii law in order to be placed on the ballot. Instead, they attested to his being chosen by acclamation (popularity). The attorney for the Hawaii Democratic Party is William H. Gilardy, Jr., who was also the attorney for Stanley Ann Soetoro in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Therefore, Mr. Gilardy might know the exact birth circumstances of BHO (it has been reported that key pages of the Soetoro divorce documents were redacted).
A letter from the Hawaii Elections Office states that Obama was qualified to run for the office of President and shows a state Democrat Party nomination form which alleges that Obama and Biden were “legally qualified to serve under the under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll.” There is no mention of constitutional eligibility. However, a letter from an elections official in Hawaii dated December 18, 2008 does mention the U.S. Constitution:
It appears that in order to meet Hawaii statutory requirements, Nancy Pelosi signed a notarized nomination certificate affirming that BHO was eligible to serve as president according to the U.S. Constitution, yet she apparently used no court-vetted probative contemporaneous documents to do so. However, it appears that the Hawaii Secretary of State placed Obama’s name on the ballot. Without any probative contemporaneous documents (which this writer believes do not exist) as the basis of Pelosi’s certification of Obama, the nominating form is arguably a forgery.
On September 28, 2010, a researcher contacted the Hawaii Elections Office at (808) 453-8683.
The researcher asked, “Why did the Hawaii Democrat Party refuse to state that Barack Obama was constitutionally eligible?”
The answer was, “You will have to call the Hawaii Democratic Committee. Their number is (808) 596-2980.”
The researcher then called the Hawaii Democratic Committee and asked, “Why did you refuse to qualify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible?”
The answer was, “I don’t know what you mean.”
The researcher explained, “Well, the language was changed in the HDC candidate form between that of Kerry and Gore whereby constitutional eligibility was noted, to that of Barack Obama whereby only acclamation was noted, and Nancy Pelosi vouched for his constitutional eligibility per Hawaii law requirements.”
The HDC’s response was, “What’s your email? I’ll have the chair get back to you.” As of publication, the researcher has not received a response.
On September 28, 2010, the researcher contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office at (202) 225-0100 and asked, “What documents were used to certify constitutional eligibility for the Hawaii Democratic Committee?”
The staffer said, “Oh, hold on a minute and I’ll get someone to help you.” The call was then transferred to House Speaker’s COMMENT LINE, where a message was left, but she received no return call.
3. The Texas Democratic Party Chair Attested To Obama’s eligibility With No Documentation Ever Shown
Texas: §192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.
A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if: (1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
The Democratic Committee chair states they are unable to comment on inquiry about documentation used for 192.031.
4. South Carolina Democratic Committee Treasurer Certifies Eligibility, No Documents Used
South Carolina: SECTION 7-11-20. Conduct of party conventions or party primary elections generally; presidential preference primaries.
Political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each certified candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules to participate in the presidential preference primary for which he has filed. Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.
On September 28, 2010, the South Carolina Elections Commission was contacted at (803) 734-9060.
The researcher asked, “Were any vetted birth documents used to support the certification by the SCDC?” and the answer was, “Hold on a minute.” The call was then put on hold and transferred to a Mr. Gary Baum of the SC Commission. The researcher left a message with him and awaited a call back or email information. Chris Webmier of Media Relations called back and said, “Only a letter was presented by SCDC. I can send it to you, but no other documents were used.” (Since the letter is linked above no request was made after it.)
The South Carolina Democrat Committee Presidential Primary Ballot Request is here.
5. State of Louisiana Statutes
§1280.22. Candidates; procedure for qualifying
A. Candidates for presidential nominee shall qualify in accordance with procedures established by the party. Prior to qualification as a candidate of a political party for presidential nominee, a person shall pay a qualifying fee of seven hundred fifty dollars and any additional fee as authorized by R.S. 18:464(C) or shall have obtained a nominating petition, bearing the handwritten signatures of no less than one thousand registered voters affiliated with the party from each of the congressional districts into which the state is divided. If the candidate is qualifying by paying a fee, the fee shall be paid in cash, by certified or cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank or credit union, by United States postal money order, or by a money order issued by a state or national bank or credit union.”
However, paragraph B.2.c. reads:
(c) The notice of candidacy also shall include a certificate signed by the candidate, certifying that he has read the notice of his candidacy and that all of the statements contained therein are true and correct. The certificate shall be executed before a notary public.
One writer states that Secretaries of State are not responsible for vetting presidential candidates, but rather, it is, in fact, the political parties who are charged with determining eligibility.
BHO has failed the requirement to be qualified to be “President of the United States” at the Constitutional level (cannot “be” a legal president per the Constitution):
The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
At the federal level, BHO has failed to qualify by vetted birth documents. BHO failed to qualify to serve as President with any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents by January 20, 2009. Neither the Oath of Office nor the Joint Session of Congress to count the electoral votes has any language about qualifying the president-elect as constitutionally eligible. Therefore BHO has never been qualified and cannot be a constitutionally legal president, no matter whose fault it is that he was not required to present sufficient documentation proving that he was a “natural born Citizen.”
The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect “fails to qualify” by January 20th, the Vice President elect is to “act as President” until a President qualifies. Because the procedure to determine Obama’s birthplace and other qualifying factors has never occurred, we know that Obama could not have “qualified” by January 20th. Anyone who certified his eligibility perjured him/herself since neither his age, name, nor birthplace has been definitively proven. Certainly no qualification by Congress of BHO is on the record utilizing any vetted documentation to establish the facts.
The president elect becomes president automatically at noon on January 20th, but there are TWO Constitutional requirements which must be met before a sitting president can “act as president” or exercise the presidential powers: he must take the oath of office, and he must “qualify.” Doing one of the two is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement. Obama has “failed to qualify” and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to “act as president” is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.
McCAIN WAS QUALIFIED BY CONGRESS PER THE 20TH AMENDMENT BUT OBAMA WAS NOT AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE DEEMED A LEGAL PRESIDENT.
The vetting of John McCain by the Senate via Senate Resolution 511 means Democrats were the original birthers! Is this scrutiny of McCain but not Obama more anti-white discrimination? McCain was compelled to produce his court-vetted long-form birth certificate in 2008, but Obama, who ironically examined McCain’s qualifications, was never required to produce any documentation himself.
McCain was born in Panama while his father was on active duty in the U.S. Navy. Vattel defines a “natural born Citizen” as “born in-country of citizen parents,” with the singular exception of birthplace for children born “in the armies of the state,” but still of parents who are citizens.
Vattel, Sec. 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Whereas McCain’s status as a natural born Citizen was arguable, BHO’s was impossible. The result of the Senate’s 20th Amendment vetting of McCain’s eligibility, which was sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and cosponsored by Barack Obama, reads:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
The McCain birth data seems contradictory. According to his birth certificate John McCain was not born on a military base (even though a newspaper microfiche says he was born on a submarine base hospital, it was not built until 5 years after McCain’s birth and no hospital is listed in a 1936 description of the compound). His birth certificate states that McCain was born at Colon Hospital which was outside of the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
The birthplace statement in SR511 is deliberately inaccurate. First, the Senate cannot deem anyone a natural born Citizen; only status-at-birth makes a person so, as Vattel asserts. McCain was born in Panama proper, “in the armies of the state.” It appears that perhaps someone gave McCain inaccurate counsel by omitting Vattel’s other definition: that he might not qualify as a natural born Citizen because of his birthplace when he actually would have qualified as a natural born Citizen, having been born “in the armies of the state.” This would be the reason for the inaccuracy in McCain’s stated birthplace in SR511. This seems to be a fake “favor” to unnecessarily describe that birthplace as a military base, since it is illogical to think BHO would positively help McCain’s campaign. The apparent quid pro quo McCain-silence about Obama’s obvious ineligibility appears to be cover for his own questionable eligibility so as to keep the issue out of the realm of public discourse. The resolution cosponsored by BHO displays one other potential argument: that BHO knew himself that two US Citizen parents were required for a person to be a natural born Citizen. Also, the microfiched birth announcement which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist, seems analogous to BHO’s microfiched birth announcement, which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist.
Based purely on logic and Article II, BHO cannot be a natural born Citizen.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
No person, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Article II definition of natural born Citizen has been elaborately summarized elsewhere. For purposes of this article, BHO has no court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents, so his name, birthplace, age, and citizenship cannot be ascertained. Therefore, BHO has not even been determined to be a statutory 14th amendment U.S. Citizen (requiring at least one U.S.-citizen parent or naturalized), let alone an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 natural born Citizen, which means born of citizen parents in-country.
Here is a brief logic-oriented description of the Natural born Citizen definition which shows why BHO cannot meet the definition:
There are two types of Citizens; Statutory (by law or statute as defined by the 14th Amendment and US Code 1401) and natural born Citizens (by nature, needing no law because there are no other options of citizenship but one for the child since both parents are Citizens and the child is born in-country). All statutory US Code 1401 citizens have at least one first-generation tie to a foreign nation at birth by parentage or birthplace, whereas no natural born Citizens ever do.
There has been an ardent attempt by some bloggers to conflate categories, grouping types of Citizens incorrectly under “naturalized citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This categorization is easily disproven by observing that U.S. Code 1401, which defines all Statutory Citizens, has two subcategories: “nationals” (naturalized) and “citizens at birth,” whereas the term “natural born Citizen” is not found within U.S. Code 1401 but rather appears in the U.S. Constitution in reference to eligibility for the presidency.
The Supreme Court already ruled in 1874 in the holding of Minor v. Happersett that the definition of a natural born Citizen is outside of the Constitution; the 14th amendment was added six years prior to Minor, so it was already “in” the Constitution (1868) at the time of the Minor ruling.*
Since the 14th amendment covers every possible human mathematical permutation of parentage and birthplace for statutory U.S. Citizens, except for one –the only omitted one must be, and is, that of a natural born Citizen (which is a baby born of two U.S. Citizen parents on U.S. soil), in agreement with Minor. Fourteenth- amendment statutory Citizens At Birth, which Minor v. Happersett holds can never be a natural born Citizen, include the following as described in US Code 1401:
US CODE 1401 Nationals (naturalized)
Citizens At Birth in USA
a) born in-country subject to jurisdiction
b) 1 US native parent, born in-country
c) 2 US citizen parents, born out-of-country
d) 1 US citizen parent plus 1 foreign national parent, born out-of-country
e) 1 US citizen parents, born out-of-country
f) unknown parentage, found in USA under age 5
g) 1 US citizen parent w/5 year residence or military or government job plus 1 alien parent, born out-of-country
h) 1 US citizen parent prior resident of USA plus 1 alien parent, born prior to 5-24-1934, out-of-country
So even if BHO is who he says he is, he cannot be a legal POTUS, because:
1. No matter where BHO was born, if his father was an alien, he is ineligible to be POTUS. Even if BHO were born in Hawaii (or in-country) which he has provided no court-vetted documentation to prove, he would be a US Code 1401 (b) statutory Citizen since he only had one U.S.-citizen parent and thus would be ineligible per Minor to be president, since no statutory citizen can ever be a natural born Citizen.
2. Since Obama’s father was a UKC (United Kingdom Colony) citizen at his birth, he is ineligible as POTUS. Factcheck.org, a website run by the Annenberg Foundation (for which BHO worked for eight years), makes an admission against interest that BHO was born a British Citizen (this is because per the British Nationality Act of 1948, BHO, Sr. and his grandfather too, were both “British Citizens by Birth,” thus making BHO, Jr. a British Citizen – ‘by birth’ if he was born in a British territory, or ‘by descent’ if not born in a British territory).
The Civil Rights Act, passed on April 9, 1866, states:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States.
If BHO is who he says he is, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 calls into question whether he is even a U.S. Citizen at all. Further, the Oath of Citizenship required for all naturalized US Citizens states: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
BHO has never abjured his self-admitted British Citizenship (which did not expire).
3. Obama’s electronic COLB does not serve as vetted birth documentation and Hawaii will not verify it even though it is no longer private. Factcheck.org, and fightthesmears.com, the latter of which states that it is “paid for by Barack Obama,” published, in electronic format only, an image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which was ostensibly filed (but not accepted) by Hawaii, which is not probative court-vetted birth documentation and which forensic experts have challenged as being a forgery. (The Obama camp has since removed the aforementioned pages.) The issue of the COLB forgery and Hawaii Vital Records’ malfeasance and fraud has been exhaustively described elsewhere. The Hawaii Department of Health refuses to even verify the publicly-published COLB by hiding behind bogus privacy reasons.
Since the party of interest (BHO) somehow placed this electronic document in the public domain for public consumption, no expectation of privacy can be justified. This is because:
a) In the 2000 decision, Green v. CBS Broadcasting Corp., a Federal District Court rejected any privacy claim because certain salacious data was to be found in the public record divorce documents. A private-facts plaintiff must show that the “private” information disclosed is not of “legitimate concern” to the public. Certainly, the Constitutional eligibility issue is a legitimate, high-concern issue for the public and as presented by BHO not at all salacious.
b) The Restatement of Torts draws the line at “morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake.” Certainly, the verification of the already-published COLB is not sensational prying into data in the COLB, since it has already been willingly published by the party of interest himself.
c) If any disclosure by Hawaiian government officials of the contents of a vital document occurs, permission from the party of interest to disclose was already granted.
Hawaii law §338-18, Disclosure of Records, prevents disclosure of private vital document data. However, the COLB published by BHO himself no longer affords privacy protections to him. Per Hawaii law §338-14.3, The Department of Health shall furnish on request and payment of fee, a verification of the existence of a certificate and that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant. However, the Hawaii Department of Health refuses to even verify the existence of an official printed version of the COLB from Factcheck.org and Fightthesmears.com as reflecting any vital event, let alone that it is accurate.
Based on all current available evidence or lack thereof, and failing evidence-based qualification from the party to the state to the federal (constitutional) levels, BHO cannot be a legal president or CIC per the 20th amendment and Article II. Again, the Oath and Electoral vote count do not serve to qualify eligibility. As Edwin Vieira pointed out in 2008, the United States is in a state of Constitutional crisis with an ongoing coup and usurpation. The Constitution is merely a contract binding the nation states, and since the office of the President is held by a contractually unqualified person, the entire constitutional contract is null and void. Any document, treaty, bill or debt is likewise null and void. The implications are too vast to describe here.
*In 1797, a decade after the Constitution was adopted, the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born Citizen.” The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of natural born Citizen, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19).
In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born Citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
Also of key interest: US v Wong Kim Ark
Democratic Party Refuses to Certify BHO’s Constitutional Eligibility (1)
Democratic Party Refuses to Certify BHO’s Constitutional Eligibility (2)
Senior Elections Clerk Honolulu: BHO Not Born In Hawaii
**If BHO has provided a court-vetted contemporaneous long form U.S. birth certificate anywhere, please notify The Post & Email and this article will be updated.