Main Menu

Precedent for examining birth certificates in Hawaii

Obama birth certificateSomeone commenting on this blog suggested that all President Obama had to do was “sign a waiver” and then the world could beat a path to his birth certificate in Hawaii1. Believe it or not, this is not as crazy as it sounds. Vital records agencies are bound by strict statutes and regulations and in Hawaii there are laws preventing a Department of Health employee from giving just anybody a copy of a vital record unless the statute authorizes them to do so.

Quite by accident today I ran across (I travel to unusual places) something pertinent in the Hawaii Department of Health Regulations that touches on the subject from Chapter 8B, Section 2.1 Access to Vital Records:

A. General

Vital records authorized under Chapter 338, Hawaii Revised Statutes, are not available for or open to public inspection. Access to the records, including copies or information from them, is not permitted except as provided by law or regulations the Department of Health may promulgate.

B. Employees

[omitted]

C. Individuals

Upon written request and proper identification, the state registrar or local registrar of a registration district (county) may permit an individual to examine a certificate for the purpose of verifying an entry or correcting an error: provided that the individual is eligible to receive such information as described in Paragraphs 2.5 through 2.9 herein.

Paragraphs 2.5 deals with who may access a record. The word “may” indicates that the registrar is not required to provide access, but could do so legally.

One provision3 under Paragraph  2.5.A(1) is of interest. It says:

(h) A person who presents a letter from the person named on the original birth records in which a specific request is made for a copy of such record1;

The language “specific request” would preclude a general waiver. Such a request would have to name the individual to view the record. So it appears that Barack Obama could in theory write a letter allowing Orly Taitz to inspect his original birth certificate (assuming the State Registrar, Dr. Onaka approved). In that situation, besides hell freezing over, we should be also looking at removing Obama from office by reason of mental defect under the 25th Amendment.


1Heck, if they did that, I might even go to Hawaii if they would let be bring a camera. I could thumb my nose at the birthers and say that I had seen it myself.

2This section details who is an “authorized agent” of the person registered and so it supplements the general category or “(b)(7)  [a] person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant” in the Statute §338-18  Disclosure of records.

3One curious point is that the list of persons with access under paragraph 2.5 does not include someone with a common ancestor with the person named. Such a person is otherwise entitled to a certified copy under the Statute §338-18(b)(5).

,

105 Responses to Precedent for examining birth certificates in Hawaii

  1. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Thanks, DOC came back to take a quick peak. So indeed Obama could release his information, It would be ludicrous to think the President would be barred from doing this, don’t you think?

    I believe that Hawaii Statute 338-18, Sec 13, 1 thru 5 could be applicable. Now that a criminal allegation has been made it can be released to Maricopa County by subpoena by a valid court issuing one.

    All states have resiprosity in these matters so I fail to see that Maricopa County would be denied if they made such a request through a court there or in Hawaii, who knows in these deeply troubled times though?

    I would have never thought we would be 1000 plus days without a budget (last budget GWB for year 2009) and deficit spending 5 Trillion Dollars in 3 years, but what do I know?

  2. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Al Halbert: Now that a criminal allegation has been made it can be released to Maricopa County by subpoena by a valid court issuing one.

    Let Arpaio take his steaming pile of poo to Hawaii and get a subpoena. Good luck to him.

    Al Halbert: All states have resiprosity in these matters

    They do not. Subpoenas issued in a court in one state are not binding on another state.

  3. avatar
    Majority Will March 3, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Al Halbert: but what do I know?

    Too easy.

  4. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    “we should be also looking at removing Obama from office by reason of mental defect under the 25th Amendment.”

    yeah that about sums it up – i WOULD NEVER agree to such a stupid thing

    so, in birtherstan, orly could fly to where? kenya? lol

    hawaii to “examine a certificate for the purpose of verifying an entry or correcting an error”?

    we already know there are NO ERRORS or obama would have corrected the entries already

    there would be no taitz fantasy island with her UNQUALIFIED “examiners & experts”

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    I don’t that would be “ludicrus” one way the other. It just is what it is.

    I don’t believe, however, that Sections 1-5 allow a response to a subpoena from Arizona. Section 1 only provides that a court may rule that someone is entitled to the record (and I presume that means to establish a tangible interest). Sections 2-5 do not deal with certified copies or inspection of records, but only letters of verification.

    In any case a “criminal allegation” is not a legal process and wouldn’t entitle anyone to anything.

    Al Halbert: Thanks, DOC came back to take a quick peak. So indeed Obama could release his information, It would be ludicrous to think the President would be barred from doing this, don’t you think?

    I believe that Hawaii Statute 338-18, Sec 13, 1 thru 5 could be applicable. Now that a criminal allegation has been made it can be released to Maricopa County by subpoena by a valid court issuing one.

  6. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    “Al Halbert: All states have resiprosity in these matters”

    i guess you didn’t read arpaio’s response to taitz’s subpoena

    it was NOT VALID, he did not show up, nor did he produce the documents requested

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    While most birthers do not understand this, the purpose of this is blog is to provide accurate information, reasoned discussion, educational opportunities, and links to authoritative sources. It is not here to bash the birthers. It only comes across as bashing the birthers because they are usually inaccurate, unreasonable, uneducated, and non-authoritative. That does not mean, however, that birthers are always wrong of necessity. The facts are the facts, and in the best possible world remain the facts regardless of where they lead.

    Al Halbert: Thanks, DOC came back to take a quick peak.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    The fact that Dr. Onaka would have to approve inspection of any record requested by Barack Obama reminds me of a comedy record I heard in my youth. Thinking back on the recording, I’m still not sure whether it was racist or anti-racist.

    In any case in the story a black man tries to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and ends up joining. He reports back that the agitators have this song “We shall overcome” and that the Klan had come up with their own song: “The hell you will!”

    That’s what I think Onaka’s reply to Orly Taitz would be.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    He gave WND an “exclusive.” 👿

    donna: it was NOT VALID, he did not show up, nor did he produce the documents requested

  10. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While most birthers do not understand this, the purpose of this is blog is to provide accurate information, reasoned discussion, educational opportunities, and links to authoritative sources. It is not here to bash the birthers. It only comes across as bashing the birthers because the are usually inaccurate, unreasonable, uneducated, and non-authoritative. That does not mean, however, that birthers are always wrong of necessity. The facts are the facts, and in the best possible world remain the facts regardless of where they lead.

    Agreed!

  11. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Al Halbert: Agreed!

    Then how about we correct your “fact” that Hawaii would have to honor a subpoena from a court in another state? No such “resiprosity: to use your term exists.

  12. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

    Al Halbert: I believe that Hawaii Statute 338-18, Sec 13, 1 thru 5 could be applicable. Now that a criminal allegation has been made it can be released to Maricopa County by subpoena by a valid court issuing one.

    ROTFL. Arpaio would never be as foolish as to make a criminal allegation. Just listen to his chicken language…

  13. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Al Halbert: Thanks, DOC came back to take a quick peak. So indeed Obama could release his information, It would be ludicrous to think the President would be barred from doing this, don’t you think?

    And he has done so several time. It would be ludicrous to believe that those who ignore the facts would change their minds now? Don’t you think?

  14. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    “He gave WND an “exclusive.”

    c’est vrai, doc!!!

    arpaio’s press conference was really a corsi/zullo book roll out

    were there signed books for sale?

    i would LOVE to see their financial arrangement

  15. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 3, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    Keep in mind that Hawaii also has a duty to preserve the integrity of its own records. And it’s not just Obama’s birth certificate – it is all the other birth certificates being stored in the same volume. Also, like many states, it has staffing and budgetary limitations– perhaps they cannot afford a full time employee to monitor the parade of visitors who would want to “inspect” the original if there was some sort of “waiver” on file. Also, it’s not clear from the section you describe whether the “waiver” could be general (“I hereby authorize everyone and anybody”) or specific (“I hereby authorize my good friend, Doc Conspiracy.”)

  16. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    i can visualize the “examination”

    taitz forced to dress in sterilized surgical garb, wearing white gloves and viewing obama’s document under glass

    i can hear the SCREECHING from here

  17. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    according the the statute, the state registrar or local registrar of a registration district “may permit an INDIVIDUAL to examine a certificate for the purpose of verifying an entry or correcting an error”

    it doesn’t sound like a bevy of beauties would be allowed

    more like, if obama thought there was an error, his wife could go there and correct it for him

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    The word “specific” appears in the regulation, and I think the State would interpret it to be a one-time request for a named individual. I can’t see them creating a tourist attraction.

    Expelliarmus: Also, it’s not clear from the section you describe whether the “waiver” could be general (“I hereby authorize everyone and anybody”) or specific (“I hereby authorize my good friend, Doc Conspiracy.”)

  19. avatar
    John March 3, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    I highly doubt Onaka would ever agree. Most birthers agree that the Hawaii DOH is lying when they state they have Obama’s original birth certificate. This is heightened by the fact that Governor Abercrombie stated that he could not find the birth certificate after an internal investigation. Governor Abercrombie stated he was only able to find an unspecified notation. This appears to be credible given the fact that the Director for the Hawaii DOH was appointed and works under Governor Abercrombie. It would have been absurd to think that if Governor Abercrombie conducted an internal investigation he would have not utilized the service of the Director of DOH or the state register Alvin Onaka.

    Even assuming that the original birth certificate does in fact exist, it is most likely a forgery. There is also high degree that the original birth certificate is also under lock and key by Obama and that what was placed on the White Website is a manufactured forgery.

    This could true given that fact the original birth certificate might state that Obama WAS NOT born in a hospital and to cover the deception, a manufactured copy had to be produced.

    The State of Hawaii can’t say anything because the forgery bears their seal and stamp so they have no choice but to go along.

    The Hawaii DOH will never willfully yield to show Obama’s original vital records.

  20. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    OMG

    you MISSED a few things

    the ORIGINAL authentication was by REPUBLICAN governor lingle who campaigned for mccain and her REPUBLICAN staff

  21. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    as for john, he was approaching the end of the cliff, now he has fell off, what will he do on Obama’s re-election?

  22. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    from wing nutzz daily

    5/05/2010

    Hawaii governor announces ‘exact’ place of Obama birth
    ‘The question has been asked and answered, and I think we should all move on now’

    More than a year and half after Barack Obama was elected commander in chief, the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama’s birth, saying “the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    The remark came Sunday night when Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, was interviewed on New York’s WABC Radio by host Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

    “This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

    2008, director of health, Chiyome Fukino: “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Okubo cited Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 338-18, which pertains to “Disclosure of Records.”

    “The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”

  23. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    John:

    Even assuming that the original birth certificate does in fact exist, it is most likely a forgery.

    I love the lack of any argument to support this foolish assertion. Is that you John?… Nevermind

  24. avatar
    John March 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    This is a bold faced lie. The Hawaii DOH Director never issued a release stating that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.

    Yes, Hawaii but definitely not the hospital.

  25. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    John: The State of Hawaii can’t say anything because the forgery bears their seal and stamp so they have no choice but to go along.

    Or more plausible, they have attested to a true fact. John cannot accept such a possibility even though it is the most plausible one given the evidence

    John’s dislike for our President and government causes him to abandon logic and reason to support his ignorance with nothing but fear and hatred. I have seen it before, it is not a pretty picture. But John does testify to the dramatic consequences of such a ‘position’. Bless his heart…

  26. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    it’s pretty certain that Al Halbert & john will not show up for Obama’s inauguration next January. They will still be busy “birthen”. They have 4 more years to get to the vault for a BC and we have 4 more years of Obama. Kinda Neat!.

  27. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    Scientist: Let Arpaio take his steaming pile of poo to Hawaii and get a subpoena.Good luck to him.

    They do not.Subpoenas issued in a court in one state are not binding on another state.

    I stand on my STATEMENT which was a “Valid Court” this means in Hawaii or as provided for by any agreement between Arizona and Hawaii!

  28. avatar
    Thrifty March 3, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Don’t mind John. He’s just installing wheels so that the goalposts don’t make that awful scraping sound next time he moves them. Notice that he said “Even assuming that the original birth certificate does in fact exist, it is most likely a forgery. “

    He’s clearly setting up what we all know would happen if the original were opened up to inspection by the Birthers. They’d say “forgery” like they did with the long form and the COLB.

    nbc: I love the lack of any argument to support this foolish assertion. Is that you John?… Nevermind

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    What Lingle said was not true, but I doubt it was an intentional lie. Lingle, of course, had independent information that Obama was born at Kapi’olani.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9YpAa891AmA

    John: This is a bold faced lie. The Hawaii DOH Director never issued a release stating that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    You can stand on it, but that’s all you’re going to do. You’re not going anywhere with it.

    Al Halbert: I stand on my STATEMENT which was a “Valid Court” this means in Hawaii or as provided for by any agreement between Arizona and Hawaii!

  31. avatar
    justlw March 3, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    John: Governor Abercrombie stated that he could not find the birth certificate after an internal investigation.

    Speaking of bald-faced lies (or “bold-faced lies” if you want to be typographic), that would be one.

  32. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Obama referred to Kapi’olani as “the place of my birth” in a letter he sent as part of the hospital’s 100th anniversary in 2009. And the hospital not only published the letter in its magazine (see page 6), but then-Congressman Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat who is now governor of the state, proudly read the letter aloud at the hospital’s anniversary gala. Video of that event still is posted on the hospital’s website.

  33. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    a “Valid Court”?

    kindly define “Valid Court”

  34. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    Al Halbert: I stand on my STATEMENT which was a “Valid Court” this means in Hawaii or as provided for by any agreement between Arizona and Hawaii!

    A valid court either means that one gets a court in Hawaii to issue the order but there is no case pending here. Or one could have a letter rogatory or Commission issued by the Court in Arizona as there are not agreements between Arizona and Hawaii. As I understand a Commission, these can only be used to get someone to testify and may not apply to production of documents

    A party or attorney seeking to take a deposition in Hawaii for a case pending out-of-state must petition the Hawaii courts for issuance of the subpoena. On the presentation of a verified petition, the Hawaii Circuit Court will order the issuance of a subpoena to any witness, commanding the witness to appear before the commissioner, officer or person named or designated in the commission, notice or other paper, at a time and place also designated, to testify in the same manner as is provided by the rules of court relating to depositions for use in Hawaii. Haw. Rev. Stat. 624-27.

    Let me know if you can find anything relevant here. So far the failures of Orly should have been informative.

  35. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    nbc: A valid court either means that one gets a court in Hawaii to issue the order but there is no case pending here. Or one could have a letter rogatory or Commission issued by the Court in Arizona as there are not agreements between Arizona and Hawaii. As I understand a Commission, these can only be used to get someone to testify and may not apply to production of documents

    Let me know if you can find anything relevant here. So far the failures of Orly should have been informative.

    You have quoted a Statute for a Deposition which is sworn Testimony given by a Witness, a Court Reporter records the Questions and Answers and any objections by Counsel. This is NOT what one would use for the production of Documents, it would be a Subpeona Duces Tecum.

  36. avatar
    Xyxox March 3, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    I don’t see any reason why the first African American president in American history should do something that no other president in American history has ever been asked to do.

    He’s already done too much to placate the birthers, if you ask me, and not one bit of it has changed their minds.

    This is why I am 100% convinced that to be a birther is just being a racist by another name.

  37. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    2/1/2012

    Farrar v. Obama: Motion for Letters Rogatory–DENIED

    The Court has reviewed the motion by Plaintiffs, Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth, to direct and/or request the Court in Hawaii to order the release of certain Hawaii documents to the Plaintiffs. This Court lacks jurisdiction or authority to direct or request documents from Hawaii. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

    SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of January, 2012

    Taitz is trying to pull this rabbit out of Georgia’s hat through a case, Taitz v. Fuddy, that has already, in Hawaii, been Dismissed with Prejudice, and Reconsideration Denied. Over and done.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21156

  38. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Al Halbert: You have quoted a Statute for a Deposition which is sworn Testimony given by a Witness, a Court Reporter records the Questions and Answers and any objections by Counsel. This is NOT what one would use for the production of Documents, it would be a Subpeona Duces Tecum.

    Yes, that’s why I said it was going to be tough as there appears to be no such provision allowing one to get a foreign jurisdiction to do so. Perhaps you are having more luck?

    Good luck, just trying to help, realizing that this may be another Quixotic challenge…

  39. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    donna:
    a “Valid Court”?

    kindly define “Valid Court”

    The elements are essentially two fold, they are as follows;

    a). The Court has Jurisdiction over the documents at hand, this means a Court in Hawaii.

    b). That a cursory need for the production of these documents is provided to the Court.

    In most cases a Court after finding it has jurisdiction will approve the Subpoena, in some courts in this Nation the Clerk will will review the information and approve the Subpeona with a Stamp of the Judge who is assigned to hear these matters. Some States required the Clerk to submit it a Judge for signature.

    Most Courts assigns an Administrative Judge to handle these routine matters. In this case it would probably be Approved with little fanfare, as Obama has previously released his True and Correct and Certified Document, no jeopardy would attach by this action by the Court, since Obama has placed this information in the Public Domain by his own hand!

  40. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    nbc: Yes, that’s why I said it was going to be tough as there appears to be no such provision allowing one to get a foreign jurisdiction to do so. Perhaps you are having more luck?

    Good luck, just trying to help, realizing that this may be another Quixotic challenge…

    Your Hopeless, not do not know what type of Subponea to File, you think that Justice is stymied by State Lines, that is just naive, as each State cooperates with each otherwise all would need to do is leave a state of jurisdiction and they are SCOT Free, apparently you have not heard of the “Long Arm of the Law”?

  41. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Al Halbert:

    so you think no one has filed court papers in hawaii?

  42. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    Court of competent jurisdiction requires the court to have subject matter jurisdiction. When the Court is faced with statutory limitations as to access, there needs to be an actual case in Hawaii where there is a plaintiff which the court has found to have standing. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is one of competent jurisdiction.

    Filing a simple court action in Hawaii has been tried and failed as the plaintiff lacks standing. See Wolf v Fuddy for example. So what now.

  43. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    And of course Justice v Fuddy…

  44. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    justice v fuddy

    court of appeals

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52521147/Justice-v-Fuddy

  45. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Al Halbert: Your Hopeless, not do not know what type of Subponea to File, you think that Justice is stymied by State Lines, that is just naive, as each State cooperates with each otherwise all would need to do is leave a state of jurisdiction and they are SCOT Free, apparently you have not heard of the “Long Arm of the Law”?

    Ironically, the absence of a long arm of the law was used as an argument against granting access to the certificate, as the court in question was not one of competent jurisdiction.

    I am very aware of the subpoena to file, just that there appears to be no agreement between Az and Hi that guides this. While there are ways to get access to foreign testimony, a duces tecum request does not appear to be covered. And since the court has to be one of competent jurisdiction, there is little hope that a court which has no subject matter jurisdiction over the document can be considered to be a competent jurisdiction.

    However, I am amazed that with your newly found wisdom (sic), you are still pursuing something which has been tried to no avail. Do you have better arguments than the ones rejected by the courts?

    You are familiar with Taitz v Fuddy, Wolf v Fuddy, Justice v Fuddy? Just trying to help you on what appears to be a quixotic quest. You make vague assertions, arm waving arguments but so far no reference to any rule or law or act to support your position.

    Must be tough…

  46. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    nbc:
    Court of competent jurisdiction requires the court to have subject matter jurisdiction. When the Court is faced with statutory limitations as to access, there needs to be an actual case in Hawaii where there is a plaintiff which the court has found to have standing. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is one of competent jurisdiction.

    Filing a simple court action in Hawaii has been tried and failed as the plaintiff lacks standing.See Wolf v Fuddy for example. So what now.

    We are TALKING about Criminal Allegations from a duly authorized Law Enforcement Agency from the State of Ariizona, which is Maricopa County Sheriffs Office here; not an Individual Seeking a peek at Obama BC. Different Standards!

  47. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    donna: justice v fuddy

    Thanks for helping out our poor friend. I doubt that he understands that the precedents do not help him… What do they say about trying the same approach time after time, expecting a different outcome?

  48. avatar
    John Reilly March 3, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Al, you have no idea what you are talking about. In 49 states and the District of Columbia, they are bound to accept into evidence the certified birth certificate and give full faith and credit to the statement of Hawaii that President Obama was born there. That’s, like, in the Constitution, you know, and it’s not going to change soon, and certainly not in time for some “administrative” judge (another topic of which you know nothing) in some other state to conduct some investigation into whether Hawaii is lying.

    In Hawaii, I suppose one can conjur up a case or legislative inquiry where one might, theoretically, challenge the DOH’s assertions. But since every court case so far in Hawaii, and both a Republican and Democratic adminstration say they’re not going there, the possibilities seem to be better that I will be starting forward for the Pacers next year than Hawaii will open the vault.

    What is more likely to happen is the “October Surprise.” The Republicans (i.e., my party) nominate someone who makes some veiled comments about maybe more investigation is necessary. Some candidate whose own birth certificate is nowhere to be found. And then Geraldo does an hour long thing on live TV, and lo and behold, there is actually an original certificate there bound in a book. In a vault. All neat and tidy.

    Now we all know what will happen next. Folks will be reminded that all of these birther claims about the President are thinly disguised racism, plain and simple. And birthers will demand that someone produce Geraldo’s birth certificate. (Hint: I think his real name is Jerry Rivers.)

  49. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Al Halbert: We are TALKING about Criminal Allegations from a duly authorized Law Enforcement Agency from the State of Ariizona, which is Maricopa County Sheriffs Office here; not an Individual Seeking a peek at Obama BC. Different Standards!

    Well, this was not an official investigation, there are no criminal allegations other than some hand waving. Explain to me why Arpaio or a Court in Arizona has subject matter jurisdiction over a document held by Hawaii?

    Do you even realize that Arpaio has fooled everyone with his ‘investigation’?

  50. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    donna:
    justice v fuddy

    court of appeals

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52521147/Justice-v-Fuddy

    You have reference an Administrative Law issue, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office a Duly authorized entity under the Laws of Arizona, which has made a Criminal Allegation so the matter is elevated out the Administrative Law arena to a Criminal Court Jurisdiction!

  51. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    criminal allegations?

    so he should take those “allegations” to the DA

    the DA will then laugh him out of the office

    will the DA call a grand jury for an indictment with those “allegations”?

    a preliminary hearing?

    NOT ONE of those “allegations” is NEW

  52. avatar
    John Reilly March 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Al, Sheriff Joe should go directly to the Maricopa county prosecutor and grand jury, and report his findings. If they accept those findings and believe that the President has committed a crime, they ought to indict the President. I’m big on law and order.

    And speaking of “Law and Order”, Lenny Briscoe in 30 minutes does more investigation than Sheriff Joe and his cold cut posse.

    It’s time for Sheriff Joe to put up. He says a crime has been committed. Go indict someone. Go indict the President. (Fellow commenters: don;t jump down my throat on that, I know you can’t indict the President, all you can do is impeach him. But our birther friends live in an alternate universe in which time travel is possible, i.e., Hawaii to Kenya overnight, and in which there are special requirements for Black people.

    Of course, we know where this one is going. Maricopa County and Gov. Brewer are not about to embarass themselves over Sheriff Joe’s nonsense.

  53. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    So what did Arpaio really say

    At the veryleast, I can tell you this: based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, Icannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic

    UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER/BIRTHER 4:
    …in light of the findings of theCold Case Posse investigation, is it not reasonable for Americans to conclude that,having fraudulently been misrepresented as eligible to be President, by whosoever committed that crime, Mr. Soetoro or Obama, is, even now, proceeding in the crimes against the highest laws, in the commission of the crimes against the highest…

    MIKE ZULLO [off mike, softly, to Arpaio]: Don’t go there.

    You’ve been had my friend

  54. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    You have reference an Administrative Law issue, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office a Duly authorized entity under the Laws of Arizona, which has made a Criminal Allegation so the matter is elevated out the Administrative Law arena to a Criminal Court Jurisdiction!

    Funny how Arpaio insists he did nothing of the kind. Ouch… Have you been fooled to by our ‘Sheriff’

  55. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    nbc: Well, this was not an official investigation, there are no criminal allegations other than some hand waving. Explain to me why Arpaio or a Court in Arizona has subject matter jurisdiction over a document held by Hawaii?

    Do you even realize that Arpaio has fooled everyone with his investigation’?

    The Citizens of Maricopa County had concerns that an individual (Obama) was not eligible to the office of President under Article II Sec. 1 of our Constitution. This gives him jurisdiction to the Citizens of Arizona and Maricopa County specifically. Did you not take any Civics Courses in school?

    NOT one person today has offered any evidence to DISPUTE the Sheriffs findings only opinions, which are just that opinions, Not FACTS! I have proposed a way to end this matter immediately which everyone here is averse to support, WHY?

    One more time, Obama has already released his True and Correct and Certified BC, so why doesn’t he just release Hawaii to allow the public access to their records (best evidence) and end this matter, he cannot be harmed by this as he already has placed all the information into the Public Domain! All this would do is show the Birthers what idiots they are, where is the HARM in that?

  56. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Al Halbert: so the matter is elevated out the Administrative Law arena to a Criminal Court Jurisdiction!

    Al Halbert: Different Standards!

    Al Halbert: as provided for by any agreement between Arizona and Hawaii!

    Al Halbert: I stand on my STATEMENT which was a “Valid Court” this means in Hawaii or as provided for by any agreement between Arizona and Hawaii!

    I haven’t seen so many exclamation points since I last read DC Comics Powie! Whap! Crrrrsh!

    Let me make it simple on you Al. $100 says no charges are filed against Obama, no subpoenas issued, no records examined. Are you man enough to bet?

    I say you aren’t!!!

  57. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    I find it hilarious how people believe that the publicity stunt by Arpaio amounted to anything of substance…
    Arpaio will never make any criminal allegations, he is too smart to do that. But he wants people to believe that he did… If he did, the DA of Maricopa County could put the question in front of a grand jury and then perhaps criminal charges may be filed. But neither the “Sheriff’ nor the DA will be so foolish..
    Arpaio is hoping for a congressional investigation, or perhaps Hawaii investigating but he is not going to really pursue this. Why do you think he is using his cold case posse?

  58. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    Al Halbert: The Citizens of Maricopa County had concerns that an individual (Obama) was not eligible to the office of President under Article II Sec. 1 of our Constitution. This gives him jurisdiction to the Citizens of Arizona and Maricopa County specifically.

    Eligibility for the presidency is a federal matter!
    Are you going to take my bet or aren’t you!
    Come on! Al!
    $100!
    Why not!

  59. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Hilarious, now, rather than arguing that the Court could issue a subpoena for release of the document, our friend is asserting that the ‘Sheriff’ had jurisdiction to investigate when in fact there is no foundation for jurisdiction, nor did Arpaio even investigate in an official capacity. He used non-tax payers funding to have his volunteer ‘posse’ look at something and concluded that at best he could not claim with certainty that the documents were real, as he believed that compression artifacts showed potential evidence of fraud.

    Of course, no criminal allegations were made, no charges filed, no case was referred to the DA. This is one big publicity stunt and our quixotic friend fell for it.

    Question: What relevance do copies of the original document showing potential evidence of editing, when the original documents were available and were in fact photographed and showed no evidence of these artifacts?

    You have been had my friend. Mind my words, nothing is going to happen if you hope Arpaio to lead the charge.

  60. avatar
    John Reilly March 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Al, you did not reply to my point. Sheriff Joe says the birth certificate is a forgery. Let us assume for a moment that the forged birth certificate actually is a crime in Arizona. The next step is for the Maricopa County Grand Jury to indict the President, because in your alternate universe Black Presidents can be indicted. Then the President shows up with a certified copy of his birth certificate, signed by Dr. Onaka. Full faith and credit. Case over. Arizona has no jurisdiction to investigate Hawaii’s bookkeeping.

    So kindly deal with this world. Full faith and credit. Can’t indict a sitting President. Not a single member of Congress believes in any of Sheriff Joe’s crap.

  61. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Your solution is not based on legal or statutory requirements or foundations but rather attempts to assert, that the Court in Hawaii could simply order the document to be released. No arguments. Nothing…

    Now you are arguing that Obama could order the document to be released. Assuming that you are correct, the posse would see the same document that Obama has shown already. Sigh… Such foolishness.

  62. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    NBC: “What do they say about trying the same approach time after time, expecting a different outcome?”

    i believe it’s I N S A N I T Y!!!!!!

  63. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    So kindly deal with this world. Full faith and credit. Can’t indict a sitting President. Not a single member of Congress believes in any of Sheriff Joe’s crap.

    Few rational people would take our Sheriff’s musing seriously. Certainly, quite a few have misunderstood what happened a few days ago.

    Hilarious…

  64. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Al, are you afraid to put actual money on your opinions? A real man like you! Who knows so much! For shame!!

  65. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    donna:
    criminal allegations?

    so he should take those “allegations” to the DA

    the DA will then laugh him out of the office

    will the DA call a grand jury for an indictment with those “allegations”?

    a preliminary hearing?

    NOT ONE of those “allegations” is NEW

    Does Arizona require a Grand Jury Indictment or do they also allow Indictment by Information? If they DO then the District Attorney can then directly indict, if not it requires a Grand Jury indictment my guess they can do both.

    Most states and the Federal Government use Grand Juries for information gathering entities, as Subpoenas are issued under this bodies jurisdiction of the Court in question, for criminal or civil matters. Then they make a presentment to the Grand Jury for indictment when they (attorney) feel enough evidence to warrant an indictment has been gathered and they lay it out for the Grand Jury.

    I sat on a Federal Grand Jury for 18 Months and know how our Federal Justice system works, Arizona is probably similar! Under the Federal System you can be indicted by a Grand Jury or by Information to a presentment to a Federal Magistrate of probable cause.

  66. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    Scientist:
    Al, are you afraid to put actual money on your opinions?A real man like you!Who knows so much!For shame!!

    ???????????????????????????

  67. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    Al Halbert: Arizona is probably similar!

    By what rules of grammar does that clause get an exclamation point?

    Are you prepared to bet or not? If you back your opinuions with cash, then be off with you!

  68. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    I will post once again for everyone to consider;

    I have debunked the premise of the Article about Mike Zullo having lied, I have shown the Hawaii State Statutes that were in effect at that time in 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth, no one has disputed or contradicted this. And proven how a 3 year old could be given a Birth Certificate that states any other date then their real birth date!

    Furthermore, I have also given a reasonable conjecture given the latest evidence regarding the LFBC and the Selective Service Card have been declared a Forgery by Maricopa County Duly appointed Officers under the Laws of Arizona and their Constitution. My hypothesis is that given the current state of the Privacy Laws that Hawaii is Barred from giving pertinent definitive information on our Presidents BC. I have also proposed to end this Matter in a definitive manner by release of the information by Hawaiian DOH under State Statute 338-18 by a request from our President which I am responsibly assured would be honored; to release their information which is in micro photographic form for 3rd party verification.

    I have also presented that since Obama has already released his True and Certified copy per Hawaii 338-19 that he cannot be harmed by this in any way, shape or form since he has already placed all the statical data that the certificate contains into the Public Domain. The only people that will be harmed by this is the “Birthers” as most all have proclaimed he has already done and will be redundant, so the birthers are the ones that have something to lose, NOT Obama. This mess was created by Obama in the first placed when it took him 6 months to release his COLB, then and additional 2 years to release his LFBC.

    So for the life of me I cannot understand any rational objection to my proposal unless most of you are really scared that he has indeed allowed someone to provide him with fraudulent documents as determined by duly appointed law enforcement personnel. This investigation by Maricopa County is the first time any real law enforcement scrutiny has been applied to the Obama Nativity. After all there were Congressional Discussions and a Senate resolution for McCain to be cleared, is this so much to ask?

    Since their is the possibility that things are not as Obama has claimed and I have proven how this could have come to be, a serious dialog needs to be undertaken to bring our President out from under this CLOUD. You can refuse to accept what the findings are however this is a serious criminal allegation and deserves to be investigated to it’s logical conclusion wherever that may be. I have only proposed how to short cut this to end the mater immediately, though have been given rejection at every turn. So what is all of the proponents detractors of verification afraid of? I suggest they should welcome the scrutiny and then have a really good laugh at all the Birthers and….

  69. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    so now it’s “information”?

    why do you suppose his “experts’ were UNNAMED?

    would they be court qualified pursuant to the rules of evidence?

    Doc refuted his selective service assertion in “minutes”

    going on to the INS website, there are NO travel records after 1957

    the CONSERVATIVE national review refuted the “layers” assertion last year

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

  70. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Al Halbert: Does Arizona require a Grand Jury Indictment or do they also allow Indictment by Information? If they DO then the District Attorney can then directly indict, if not it requires a Grand Jury indictment my guess they can do both.

    Yes, you do guess a lot don’t you. So then the DA can indict directly. But he won’t be that foolish as no criminal charges have been filed and none really exist .

    Most states and the Federal Government use Grand Juries for information gathering entities, as Subpoenas are issued under this bodies jurisdiction of the Court in question, for criminal or civil matters. Then they make a presentment to the Grand Jury for indictment when they (attorney) feel enough evidence to warrant an indictment has been gathered and they lay it out for the Grand Jury.

    I sat on a Federal Grand Jury for 18 Months and know how our Federal Justice system works, Arizona is probably similar! Under the Federal System you can be indicted by a Grand Jury or by Information to a presentment to a Federal Magistrate of probable cause.

    Well, you must be familiar with the 5th Amendment then

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Let us know when you have done your legal ‘research’ so far it is woefully inadequate…

  71. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Al Halbert: I will post once again for everyone to consider

    Your opinions are worthless unless you back them with cash!

    I’m Al!
    Your pal!
    But I won’t back!
    My opinions with smack!
    I’m afraid!
    That Scientist will get paid!

  72. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Hey, Al!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaiSHcHM0PA

  73. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Let me help you out. The Arizona Constitution mentions how one can be indicted, the Arizona Rules for Criminal Procedures explain how one may be indicted for misdemeanor or felony.

    Glad to be of help. But really you still have failed to explain why there will be an information or indictment of anyone in Arizona? Who would file them and why? And how would a court in Arizona be able to claim jurisdiction over the President?…

    Let’s see if you really understand the law.

  74. avatar
    John Reilly March 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    NBC, you beat me with the cite to the Fifth Amendment. However, in the alternate universe Al inhabits, federal cases can be made simply by an accusation by the Federal Attorney, with no protection by the grand jury.

    Al, you might try reading the Magna Carta. The concept that somepone could be charged with a crime solely at behest of the King went out in 1215. (footnote: does not aply to wives of Henry VIII.)

    But Al, maybe you are right. Just get the Maricopa county prosecutor to charge the President with a crime. After all, according to Mr. Swensson, his failure to do so now might be misprision of a felony.

    How about it Al?

    And while you are at it, try answering my question about how does Arizona get to question how Hawaii keeps its records?

  75. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Al Halbert: I have debunked the premise of the Article about Mike Zullo having lied, I have shown the Hawaii State Statutes that were in effect at that time in 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth, no one has disputed or contradicted this. And proven how a 3 year old could be given a Birth Certificate that states any other date then their real birth date!

    No such proof has been submitted In fact, a three year old would have been given a delayed birth certificate which would show on the face of the document. No such notation is found.

    In 1961, unless born on US soil, a child could not obtain a birth certificate in Hawaii and there is no evidence to the contrary. While children born abroad can be granted a HI birth certificate after 1980, such a document would properly show the location of birth to be foreign.

    So many follies.

  76. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    John Reilly: And while you are at it, try answering my question about how does Arizona get to question how Hawaii keeps its records?

    Well, they don’t of course… Full faith and credit… Darn constitution…

  77. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Scientist: ter

    Wrong, one must Qualify in every State in the Union which Hold the power to hold elections, the results are aggregated for the Office of President. Each State also has requirements for their Electoral College Delegates to follow for the State(s) results for certification to Congress. After all it is the Electoral College that elects the President. Did you not attend your Civics courses in School?

  78. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    Al Halbert: Furthermore, I have also given a reasonable conjecture given the latest evidence regarding the LFBC and the Selective Service Card have been declared a Forgery by Maricopa County Duly appointed Officers under the Laws of Arizona and their Constitution.

    No real criminal findings were made, the Sheriff and others were clear… There appear to be some possible evidence that the copies of the documents were manipulated but that does not amount to much of anything. No evidence of fraud has been presented as to the Selective Services Document, not would such a fraud be against our President. So in other words, expect that nothing will happen with these findings which were unofficial and Arpaio was clear to avoid making any statements of legality.

    Some people found something that they cannot understand or explain and they believe it shows evidence of perhaps fraud. Nothing that amounts to anything actionable. You have been fooled by Arpaio’s circus… Mind my words, Arpaio will never submit his findings officially, nor will he file charges or press the DA to do so. He is not that foolish.

  79. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    Al Halbert: Did you not attend your Civics courses in School?

    Did you not study English grammar? How does “Hold” get capitalized? Or “Delegates”? Or “Qualify”?

    Anyway Sheriff’s don’t decide who qualifies in theiir state and not qualifying is not a crime. There is no jurisdiction for a Sheriff in this matter. And Arpaio knows it; if there was he would have investigated as regular matter.

    Now where is our bet? Why are you afraid? Wuss!!!

  80. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    Al Halbert: I have also presented that since Obama has already released his True and Certified copy per Hawaii 338-19 that he cannot be harmed by this in any way, shape or form since he has already placed all the statical data that the certificate contains into the Public Domain.

    I guess you still have failed to read Taitz v Fuddy, Wolf v Fuddy and Justice v Fuddy. Hint: It has nothing to do with ‘harm’ but all with the State being prohibited from releasing the data.

  81. avatar
    Al Halbert March 3, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Scientist: Eligibility for the presidency is a federal matter!
    Are you going to take my bet or aren’t you!
    Come on!Al!
    $100!
    Why not!

    Article II Sec. 1 Spells out the Constitutional Qualifications for the Office of President, the States hold the elections, each state has the same requirement; are they Constitutionally Eligible to hold the Office of President per Article II Sec. 1. There is no Federal Ballot; it is held by each and every state and the Office of President is an aggregate of the state results which are the Electoral College Votes for any particular state! Each State has requirements on how each Electoral College Delegate must VOTE, they then meet after the election and give their tally to Congress to certify. Civics 101, THERE is no FEDERAL Ballot!

  82. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Al Halbert: The Citizens of Maricopa County had concerns that an individual (Obama) was not eligible to the office of President under Article II Sec. 1 of our Constitution. This gives him jurisdiction to the Citizens of Arizona and Maricopa County specifically. Did you not take any Civics Courses in school?

    I took civics in Arizona schools and don’t remember anything about sheriffs being able to investigate Constitutional disputes. But I’m sure you can cite an Arizona law that would form the basis for a criminal action in Arizona. Right?

    Al Halbert: NOT one person today has offered any evidence to DISPUTE the Sheriffs findings only opinions, which are just that opinions, Not FACTS!

    Speaking of grade school civics class it is my recollection that the burden of proof in this sort of thing lies with the accuser and that one is not required to prove the charges against him/her are not true. Right?

    Al Halbert: One more time, Obama has already released his True and Correct and Certified BC, so why doesn’t he just release Hawaii to allow the public access to their records (best evidence) and end this matter, he cannot be harmed by this as he already has placed all the information into the Public Domain! All this would do is show the Birthers what idiots they are, where is the HARM in that?

    I asked you once before and you ignored the question: Assuming you were allowed access to the document in the binder that was copied for the certified birth certificate just how would you go about determining that it was, in fact, real and not another forgery?

  83. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wrong, one must Qualify in every State in the Union which Hold the power to hold elections, the results are aggregated for the Office of President. Each State also has requirements for their Electoral College Delegates to follow for the State(s) results for certification to Congress. After all it is the Electoral College that elects the President. Did you not attend your Civics courses in School?

    I am glad you understand why the State has, under the 14th, no power to determine the eligibility or qualifications of a president. And since the state only has power over the electoral college, you have all but admitted defeat to the state challenges.

    Thank you for making our case.

  84. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Al Halbert: Wrong, one must Qualify in every State in the Union which Hold the power to hold elections

    By the way, this is demonstrably false. A candidate does not have to be on the ballot in every state. In principle a candidate could be on the ballot only in enough states to win 270 EC votes and they could blow off all the others.

  85. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Al Halbert:

    Article II Sec. 1 Spells out the Constitutional Qualifications for the Office of President, the States hold the elections, each state has the same requirement; are they Constitutionally Eligible to hold the Office of President per Article II Sec. 1.

    But the state has no power to establish whether or not a candidate for the Presidency meets these qualifications. During the primary, it is a party only issue, and for the elections, the voters elect electors, not the president. Thus in the end, it is a federal issue left to congress.

    Have you been asleep through the last 100+ failings in court?

  86. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    Scientist: By the way, this is demonstrably false. A candidate does not have to be on the ballot in every state. In principle a candidate could be on the ballot only in enough states to win 270 EC votes and they could blow off all the others.

    That Sibley’s argument in Virginia. Guess he and Al need to really talk…

  87. avatar
    Scientist March 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    nbc: But the state has no power to establish whether or not a candidate for the Presidency meets these qualifications. During the primary, it is a party only issue, and for the elections, the voters elect electors, not the president. Thus in the end, it is a federal issue left to congress.

    Yes. And any authority any state has regarding electoral ballots for any post rest with the Secretary of State, not county Sheriffs. There is NO jurisdication for Arpaio. None!

  88. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Note that President Obama affirmed to his natural born status in Arizona when filing the required forms…

    ROTFL… And there is nothing the birthers can do about this fact.

  89. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    Scientist: Yes. And any authority any state has regarding electoral ballots for any post rest with the Secretary of State, not county Sheriffs. There is NO jurisdication for Arpaio. None!

    And even the SoS has little he can do here…

  90. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    Al Halbert:

    have you followed the state ballot challenges?

    if so, how are they doing?

  91. avatar
    DP March 3, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    John Reilly:
    Al, Sheriff Joe should go directly to the Maricopa county prosecutor and grand jury, and report his findings.If they accept those findings and believe that the President has committed a crime, they ought to indict the President.I’m big on law and order.

    And speaking of “Law and Order”,Lenny Briscoe in 30 minutes does more investigation than Sheriff Joe and his cold cut posse.

    It’s time for Sheriff Joe to put up.He says a crime has been committed.Go indict someone.Go indict the President.(Fellow commenters:don;t jump down my throat on that, I know you can’t indict the President, all you can do is impeach him.But our birther friends live in an alternate universe in which time travel is possible, i.e., Hawaii to Kenya overnight, and in which there are special requirements for Black people.

    Of course, we know where this one is going. Maricopa County and Gov. Brewer are not about to embarass themselves over Sheriff Joe’s nonsense.

    This is exactly right.

    If Sheriff Joe’s little show was anything other than a farce put on to endear himself to morons, then he now has an obligation to do something about it. Of course, I think even he knows he would be humiliated and the idiotic nature of his “evidence” exposed for all to see if he does pursue it.

  92. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    how long till Al, john and other birhers realize Sheriff Joe got nothing, did nothing. PLease one of you try to present Sheriff Joe’s evidence in the upcoming ballot challeges, I need a laaugh!

  93. avatar
    donna March 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    richCares : “how long till Al, john and other birhers realize Sheriff Joe got nothing, did nothing.”??

    let’s see – we’ve been at this for 4 years? so ANOTHER 4 years? are we speaking about ANYTHING NEW? ss #s, the short form, long form, layers, index data, his mother’s passport, missing passport docs that were destroyed UNDER REAGAN, travel to kenya, adoption, natural born, selective service, etc

    so YEAH, 4 more years

    speaking of …..MS – Orly v Obama – Threat of Criminal Complaint – Orly going all out

    3. On March 1, 2012 Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county Arizona held a press conference , where he confirmed my findings and announced that Obama’s birth certificate is indeed a computer generated forgery and there is no other document attesting to Obama’s birth in this country. See links to press conference below:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/ms-criminal-complaint-orly-going-all-out/#more-22765

    Educating the Confused – Ethics rule proscribing threatening criminal prosecuation to gain an advantage in a civil matter

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/educating-the-confused-ethics-rule-proscribing-threatening-criminal-prosecuation-to-gain-an-advantage-in-a-civil-matter/

  94. avatar
    US Citizen March 4, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Hey everyone.
    Don’t be so mean to Al.
    He has a lot of good information.
    But Al is knowingly harboring Obama if he doesn’t act on all this info.
    With that said, I hereby accuse Al of Misprision of Felony.
    Al, now that you’ve been accused of a crime, it’s your duty to clear your good name.
    That’s how it works… I guess.

  95. avatar
    Thrifty March 4, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Mathematically, a candidate only has to win 12 states to be President. Someone who won the following states:

    — California
    — Texas
    — Illinois
    — Pennsylvania
    — New York
    — Florida
    — Georgia
    — North Carolina
    — Virginia
    — Ohio
    — Michigan
    — Any other state (take your pick)

    Michigan puts you at 268, so winning even one of the states with the minimum number of electoral votes puts you at 271. There might be a way to do it with 11, which I think I heard once, but I wasn’t able to figure it out with the 2012/2016/2020 distribution which is currently at play.

    Scientist: By the way, this is demonstrably false.A candidate does not have to be on the ballot in every state.In principle a candidate could be on the ballot only in enough states to win 270 EC votes and they could blow off all the others.

  96. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater March 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Mathematically, a candidate only has to win 12 states to be President.Someone who won the following states:

    – California
    – Texas
    – Illinois
    – Pennsylvania
    – New York
    – Florida
    – Georgia
    – North Carolina
    – Virginia
    – Ohio
    – Michigan
    – Any other state (take your pick)

    Michigan puts you at 268, so winning even one of the states with the minimum number of electoral votes puts you at 271.There might be a way to do it with 11, which I think I heard once, but I wasn’t able to figure it out with the 2012/2016/2020 distribution which is currently at play.

    Using your formula the candidate could take Washington DC which gets 3 electoral votes according to the 23rd amendment which would put them to 271.

  97. avatar
    vic March 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Maybe sheriff joe is a double plus secret anti-birther. He allowed his key “investigators” to have financial interests in their “expert findings”. Now they would be tainted as witnesses in any trial (except for Al’s imaginary case brought by the imaginary Arizona grand jury).

  98. avatar
    Keith March 4, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    Sorry to bring this edifying discussion back to the topic, but nobody seems to be discussing Doc’s actual post here.

    Doc quotes from Hawai’ian statutes:

    …Upon written request and proper identification, the state registrar or local registrar of a registration district (county) may permit an individual to examine a certificate for the purpose of verifying an entry or correcting an error: provided that the individual is eligible to receive such information as described in Paragraphs 2.5 through 2.9 herein.

    IANALB, the above provision does not appear to provide any provision for anyone except the individual named to examine the a certificate to verify an entry or to correct an error. The following provision does however appear to authorize an agent to obtain a copy of the record.

    [2.5.A(1)](h) A person who presents a letter from the person named on the original birth records in which a specific request is made for a copy of such record;

    It occurs to me that sentence (h) is describing EXACTLY what President Obama did in order to obtain the certified copy of the archived page which he published in 2011.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Tangentially related to this story is the note that Sunahara v. Fuddy
    will have a hearing on the motion to dismiss this Thursday, March 8.

  100. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    I don’t see the word “named.”

    Keith: individual named

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    It would seem to me that ONLY a birther could be guilty in this instance of misprision of felony, and that most of them are.

    US Citizen: Al, now that you’ve been accused of a crime, it’s your duty to clear your good name.
    That’s how it works… I guess

  102. avatar
    Keith March 4, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t see the word “named.”

    True, not in that main quote. Condition (h) however does have that word, and it specifically (at least in my reading of it) provides that the named individual may request permission for another person to get a copy, but not to view the original.

  103. avatar
    bjphysics March 5, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/precedent-for-examining-birth-certificates-in-hawaii/#comment-162334

    “Furthermore, I have also given a reasonable conjecture given the latest evidence regarding the LFBC and the Selective Service Card have been declared a FORGERY by Maricopa County Duly appointed Officers under the Laws of Arizona and their Constitution.”

    “…he has indeed allowed someone to provide him with FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS as determined by duly appointed law enforcement personnel.”

    How is an internet IMAGE of Obama’s LFBC printed by the CCP and presented to the CCP by the CCP in any way a legal document presented by Obama to the state of Arizona for some legal purpose?

    How is a photocopy of a Selective Service Card obtained by the CCP using a FOIA request and presented to the CCP by the CCP in any way a legal document presented by Obama to the state of Arizona for some legal purpose and what might that legal purpose be?

    “You can refuse to accept what the findings are however this is a SERIOUS CRIMINAL ALLEGATION…”

    What is the SERIOUS CRIME or CRIMES being alleged?

  104. avatar
    Horus March 5, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    Al Halbert: We are TALKING about Criminal Allegations from a duly authorized Law Enforcement Agency from the State of Ariizona, which is Maricopa County Sheriffs Office here; not an Individual Seeking a peek at Obama BC. Different Standards!

    You really have no idea what you are talking about.
    Allegations won’t get you squat, there has to be an indictment, and that will NEVER happen.

  105. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    bjphysics: What is the SERIOUS CRIME or CRIMES being alleged?

    That there are layers and a halo, expected with compression used in PDFs
    That the selective services form and numbers are close to Bruce Henderson’s who submitted his document a few days later…

    Yes, serious crimes indeed…

    Crimes of omission I would call them