REPLY - “The Secretary Of State Is Confused”
December 30, 2008
Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama.
The Secretary of State’s claim that “Barack Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born on August 4, 1961” is patently false. Nothing in its original form has been produced publicly. The document provided by Obama says on the bottom border that “any alteration invalidates this certificate.” The copy is altered, its CERTIFICATE NUMBER having been blotted out with a dark, black line. The only document Sen. Obama has yet to produce to demonstrate his native birth in the United States is wholly deficient to do so.
The Secretary has a duty to determine eligibility. Article VI of the United States Constitution requires all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 the Washington State Constitution makes the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land. The Secretary of State is “the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.” RCW 29A.04.230, and he is “required by law” to . . . coordinate those state election activities with federal law. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that “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.”
Our position is not moot. Amendment 20, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, states that “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 [bold added], 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.”
Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.
We did not fail to join an indispensable party. Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties. Obama has never claimed an interest in this action. Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election. The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.
We stated a claim in mandamus. The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office! We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election. He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.
The Secretary is without any evidence upon which he can reasonably rely to shirk his constitutional duty. The Secretary of State has relied upon four pieces of “evidence” he believes to be sufficient to vitiate his constitutional duty to establish the eligibility of Senator Obama: 1) the Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee; 2) the digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth posted by FactCheck.org; 3) FacCheck.org’s certification that that the Certification was genuine; and 4) the statement by State of Hawaii, Department of Health Director Dr. Fukino.
The Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee says nothing more than that Senator Obama was “duly nominated.” There is no certification by the DNC that the candidate was eligible or constitutionally qualified to hold office.
FactCheck.org’s certification is meaningless, because the document they “certify” as genuine is deficient on its face as a matter of law. The digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth does not establish that Senator Obama was born in the United States, because of Hawaiian law HRS 338-17.8 which allows for people born in foreign countries to register their birth in Hawaii.
Finally, the statement by Dr. Fukino is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with policies and procedures.” She does not tell us that the document they have is a Hawaiian birth certificate; only that there is a birth certificate on file in Hawaii.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
Cause No, 8-2-473-8
Comments
11 Responses to “REPLY - “The Secretary Of State Is Confused””
Got something to say?
Article X of the constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It seems to me the authority to determine the eligibility of the presidential candidate’s has not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited by it to the states, therefore it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This seems to me to be sufficient authority for people of the United States to investigate and to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the presidency. This example proves that even the SOS (or state) does not view that their responsibility is to determine eligibiltiy of a presidential candidate. This implies that its up to the people to do - but how can the people do if they are blocked from doing and told that they don’t have “standing” to do it. There is really something wrong here in America.
Stephen –
I have asked this question of Hawaiian law on multiple forums, and have so far not received an answer. Perhaps you could help.
In the 1961 timeframe, if an individual is born overseas, and the birth is subsequently registered in Hawaii as per Hawaiian law HRS 338-17.8 (which allows for people born in foreign countries to register their birth in Hawaii), exactly what appears in the “location of birth” field of the individual’s short-form Certification of Live Birth?
Obama’s published short-form Certification of Live Birth specifies “Honolulu” as the location of birth. Under what conditions would the State of Hawaii specify “Honolulu” as location of birth on a Certification, when the long-form vaulted Certificate specifies a foreign birth?
Thanks.
- Steve
Steve:
Your question assumes that the Certification of Live Birth provided by Senator Obama is genuine, and that assumption is suspect. The document itself has never been produced to a court of law - we have only been privvy to digital copies of photos.. Once the supplement declaration is posted in this site, you will see two affidavits filed with the court demonstrating that this “Certification” is a forgery.
Assuming arguendo that the Certification is genuine, there are several issues that could have created this situation. One issue could be that the Certifcation was crafted on the affidavit of the mother instead of the Certificate of Live Birth, and if she was engaged in an effort to establish his birth as an American birth rather than a Kenyan birth, and had an election (whether to submit the affidavit rather than the certificate of live birth), she may have done so. We know the so-called birth announcement in the 1961 press contains at least one false representation (the address where the Obamas supposedly lived); it may contain a second false representation (that they were actually married); if so, the only claim remaining is that the baby was born in Honolulu - I guess we should believe that even though all the other claims are false.
Dr. Fukino claims she has seen a “birth certificate.” As a matter of specificity, this cannot be a Hawaiian document, since Hawaii issues a “Certificate of Live Birth” to those born in Hawaii, and a “Certification of Live Birth” to those who have registered their birth in Hawaii. There is no Hawaiian “Birth Certificate,” although there may be a hospital-generated “birth certificate” (although all of the hospital on Oahu deny having any medical records for Stanley Ann Dunham or Barack Obama). If the document is in fact a “birth certificate” its origin is from outside Hawaii. This is why our proposed subpoena seeks additional documents in the hand of the Dept of Health to determine the underlying representations.
Let’s see the birth certificate.
After reading this information on Hawaiian State Dept Of Health I don’t see how a Hawaiian Certificate Of Birth can validate who “Obama” really is, where he was born or who his parents are. It is to easy to change the information. He could be adopted, had a sex change, switched parents if needed or switched his last name to anybody. Anything short of DNA will not prove who he is and even the DNA probably would not match if one could find the real parents. Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and if his parents were legally married in Hawaii and lived in Hawaii 1 year prior to his birth his COB would be legal under “Hawaiian” law.
More cliff hanger questions: Were his “parents” legally married in Hawaii?
Did his “parents” live in Hawaii at least 1 year prior to his birth?
If not his COB would not be a legal COB.
He also could have applied for an amended certificate of birth.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, and payment of any fees.
For a person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii:
So my question is how can ANY person with a COB from Hawaii claim they are a US citizen? Where does it state in US law a person born in a foreign country can be legally adopted an become a US citizen?
I agree, with out knowing what the original COB from Hawaii indicates there can not be a legal answer to the questions, “Is Obama a US citizen or is Obama a natural born citizen”
Bill
http://www.storyreports.com
Stephen:
Finally, a straight and informed answer to the question! Thanks.
Regarding the false representation (the address where the Obamas supposedly lived) in the so-called birth announcement in the 1961 press…
I believe (please correct me if I’m wrong) that, unlike modern-day custom, parents/relatives of the 60s rarely, if ever, put birth announcements in the newspaper. When a birth was registered with the Department of Health, the Hawaii Department of Vital Statistics automatically generated a birth announcement and sent it to the two local Honolulu newspapers — the Star Bulletin and the Advertiser — which then publish it “as is”.
If the address in the birth announcement is incorrect, either (a) DVS made a clerical error when it generated the birth announcement, or (b) an incorrect address was specified when the birth was registered.
I would be very interested in finding out who lived at that address at the time. Perhaps the information on the original birth registration was provided by someone other than the parents.
Keep up the good work. - Steve
Seems that only God knows the truth,and thats good enough for me, because this all makes my head spin, theres so many twists and turns to the saga will it never end?
In response to Steve’s question as to whom lived at the address listed in the birth announcement, here is another twist. That address was found to belong to one Orland S and Thelma Young) Lefforge both of whom are now deceased.
Orland, passed away in 2007 at age 91. As it turns out, he was a college professor at the University of Hawaii and the address was the Lefforge family home, not a rental property.. What connection to either the Obamas or Dunhams he may have had, I don’t know at this point.
Further, a PI was able to interview a neighbor, who has resided next door to that address since before 1961, and she states that she doesn’t believe that the Obamas ever lived there. She doesn’t ever recall a young couple with an infant being there.
As usual, for every answer there seems to be only more and more questions which surround Obama.
Is it true that, in 1961, if a mother gives birth overseas, and if the mother was a Hawaii resident for at least a year prior to the overseas birth, the State of Hawaii would (if the mother so requests) “seal” the foreign birth certificate and issue a Hawaiian birth certificate to the foreign-born baby?
If so, I was wondering what would appear on the “location of birth” field of the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth? Would it specify the actual place of birth (the foreign country) or would it specify the place of residence (in Hawaii) of the birth parents?
Does Maya Soetoro have a Hawaiian “short-form” Certification of Live Birth? If so, is a copy of it available for public viewing?
We know that Maya was born in Indonesia in 1970, so I’d expect that her Hawaiian short-form birth certificate (if she has one) would reflect that fact. But if it says “Honolulu” (as does Obama Jr.’s short-form), it would be most interesting.
Steve:
All good questions, but assume that the Certification of Live Birth was issued on the affidavit of the mother/grandmother and on nothing else. At that point, the information given in the affidavit - one year residency, address in Honolulu, claim that the baby was born in Honolulu would be the only record upon which Hawaii would issue a Certification of Live Birth, using the facts given by the mother/grandmother in the affidavit.
Upon the issuance of the Certification, the press could have picked up such info in the regular course, along with all other birth announcements.
There is another twist as well. If Obama was adopted, all the original documents would have been sealed so that he could not gain access to them, and new documents issued. This may be the birth certificate that Dr. Fukino references - that the Senator could not get, and so a false document was created. TechDude (whose name has surfaced in an affidavit currently before the Wash. Sup. Ct.) believes that the current COLB from fight the smears website was a bleached version of Maya’s certificate, which was issued to her although she was born in Indonesia. Who know’s what it originally said, because it has been bleached.
However, Amendment 20 states:
I understand this to mean:
1) There is a constitutional duty to challenge the qualifications
2) There is a constitutional basis against which to test the qualifications
3) The burden of proof is on the President elect to present proofs and demonstrate that he satisfies those qualifications.
4) There is a constitutional basis for competent constitutional authorities to evaluate that proofs against those qualifications.
5) The inviobility of the Constitution places a duty on all sworn government officers to see that the constitutional provisions are upheld.
6) We the People retain reserve powers to see that the Constitution is upheld, in the face of misprision.
May I encourage you especially to focus on 3) that the burden of proof is on the President elect.
Hi!
Give me any link to download XRUMER 5.0 FREE!
Thank you…
Very-very much.
I’m so need this program for advertise my online projects!!! This software is the best thing for online promo and mass posting, you know…
And, dont send me XRumer 2.9 and XRumer 3.0 - that versions are too old!
P.S. Google cant help me((((