Bob Robbins just forwarded a Post and Email article on Sean Hannity's rather recent but in my opinion 14 months late and $14 short (we are, after all, living in the age of the Federal Reserve Bank) demand that President Obama make his vault copy birth certificate public. The demand was made in response to remarks by Governor Sarah Palin. The Post and E-mail writes:
"(Dec. 9, 2009) — Last night Sean Hannity affirmed that the desire of millions of U.S. Citizens to see the real birth certification of Barack Hussein Obama was legitimate.
"His argument was, that if Obama was bold enough to vaunt an electronic image to 'prove' anything, that he should not be cowardly to hide the real McCoy."
The Post and Email article in turn refers to a World Net Daily Article:
"Sean Hannity today defended Sarah Palin's recent comments about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency and WND's pursuit of the story."
He said the question about his original, long-form birth certificate has still not been answered.
"What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'"
With all due respect to Mr. Hannity, where was he when this question was important, for instance, in October 2008??
Showing posts with label barack obama birth certificate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama birth certificate. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Canada Free Press on Government Fraud
Contrairimairi sent me a Canada Free Press article (CFP) alleging a conspiracy concerning President OCheeseball's birth certificate. CFP notes that the DNC filed two different birth certificates concerning President OCheeseball and asks why he:
"has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer’s funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama’s eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?"
CFP concludes:
"this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity."
What? A Democratic conspiracy to defraud voters? Impossible! This is America. We have the bail out. We have subsidies to agribusiness. We have welfare. What do you mean defraud? The Democrats could never have committed fraud.CFP must be a violent extremist!
"has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer’s funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama’s eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life?"
CFP concludes:
"this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity."
What? A Democratic conspiracy to defraud voters? Impossible! This is America. We have the bail out. We have subsidies to agribusiness. We have welfare. What do you mean defraud? The Democrats could never have committed fraud.CFP must be a violent extremist!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Barack Obama: America's Foreign President
I have been busy with my academic research in recent weeks so I was somewhat surprised to receive hate mail from one of Barack Obama's supporters. I have stopped watching television news and reading newspapers, but I gather that Mr. Obama has proposed a scheme to diminish the American health care system. His followers now scan the Internet to vilify any who disagree with their anti-American views. This one accused me of disloyalty to America because I disagree with Mr. Obama. I fear, my friends, that the traitor is in the White House, not on this blog.
The birth certificate issue has not disappeared. I have not pursued it since November. The ever-perceptive Cortes De Russy, for one, argued that it was but a political harassment tactic, an "Alinsky" tactic, if you will. Likewise, the famed David Horowitz argued that the issue was pointless.
But Larwyn, the renowned coordinator of the conservative, libertarian, Jacksonian and anti-Federalist blogs (I can't make up my mind if I'm a Jacksonian or an anti-Federalist) has forwarded an e-mail indicating that the Obama birth certificate issue, which has been carried forward by the courageous Dr. Orly Taitz, is now being covered on a social democratic disinformation outlet, CNN, by the announcer Lou Dobbs. I am not familiar with CNN, but I would reckon that if it is questioning the birth certificate then all sides are.
I missed the segment but Larwyn reports:
"Lou is with us in why won't he show the certif. It was short segment but he put the only one trying to spin it in RACISM in her place. All three on panel have radio shows..."
Moreover, the courageous Sharad Karkhanis, who is being sued by an official of the CUNY faculty union, "Sue" O'Malley, for disagreeing with the union's social democratic foreign and domestic policies, forwarded the above video of a voter questioning her Congressman about the birth certificate. The Congressman, Mike Castle, asserts a position without factual support. He reminds me of the Federal Reserve Bank's board of governors and its open market committee. We have to believe! I guess Castle didn't read the transcript!
I picked up the ball fairly early in the birth certificate story in response to wonderful work by Pamela Geller and Texas Darlin'. I am fascinated that the story is beginning revivify and to pan out, thanks to Taitz, et al.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Contrairimairi Responds to White-Hooded Blogger
A pro-Obama blog calls me names ("trembling hellcat") for posting Contrairimairi's e-mails, and, like a white sheeted Klansman scurrying in the shadows of cyberspace, relies on anonymity. Methinks the lad must be a "progressive"! Perhaps when the inflation rate hits 12% our name-calling Klansman will not be so enthusiastic about the "change" that Mr. Obama and his backers have in mind.
Contrairimairi just forwarded this e-mail that responds to the name-caller's posts concerning her e-mails:
>Whoever the poor obamabot is posting at a website questioning posts regarding Obama's family, and references to the Ford Foundation, should really get a grip.
>First, many, many kudos to Mitchell Langbert who lists who he really is at this site. He also has a host of websites that are of like opinion, and who work in concert to get to the truth in the news. I will not even mention who the other blogger is, because I would hate to direct any poor soul to his blog. He is unidentified, and has a whopping total of FOUR, yes, you read that correctly FOUR back-up blogs. What a pathetic obamabot he is. Hope the O is paying him well for his derelict services.
>He had a major problem with the transferring of Oyama Mabandla to a possible Mayandla ( nickname Maya?) Obama. He also doesn't seem to realize that very often in American culture, last names list first. (Actually he appears ignorant enough to never have attended school where so often last names are used first.) He hasn't a clue how many times we have found the family names juxtaposed just enough to give a hint it might actually BE someone other than a family member. Like Soetoro being changed to "Sutoro". Unfortunately for this person, we are wise to the game. He should read posts at the many sites who back up Mitchell. He might finally be "educated".
>I noticed he made no reference to what the "actual" Mayama Obandla was up to. Guess what.....the man linked to the same address as big O's mama has joined a group of land speculators in Africa. I'll bet they are busily getting their hands on every piece of property they are able to. Funny, because Oyama worked for just one year at an African airlines that had FINALLY turned a profit just before he took the reigns. A year later, and I believe a tidy sum of money later as well, the airlines did go belly up, and Oyama was gone to buy up properties. AMAZING!
>Of course, the obot never makes mention of why anyone would suspect that the name change seems more than fairly plausible due to the number of apparent aliases used by everyone in the SAD and O family. He also never takes the time to mention that the crux of the article was regarding the microfinancing that was going on, and most probably, not just in Indonesia. Loan a poor woman $70.00 to buy a sewing machine to hang all her family's hope on, and when or if she defaults, own the very ground on which she lives. If he had even bothered to check further, he would have found out all the properties found so far, (I am sure many are still missing from the public eye, but I trust that with the number of people still working on this, more will be found) that seem to end up in the hands of the SAD family under whatever name they are using at that moment in time.
>I know the little obot is worried about the suggestion of organ trafficking, but "sad" (no pun intended) to say, it is a means for people in third world countries to make money, and one has to just think that the numbers of doctors whose names are connected to SAD's "hints" (it was only a suggestion, not a full-fledged accusation) of what so many of us, who have seen how disgusting so much of this truly is, need to worry about. Let's just say.......we wouldn't be surprised.
>Poor little obot. If you had been able to DISprove anything, I might have had enough respect for you to post on your blog. However, after visiting your site, I was overcome with laughter. Those of us who KNOW how you bots act, are far too intelligent to fall for your idiocy. Honestly......FOUR "back-up blogs". My suggestion.... Get a REAL life!
Contrairimairi just forwarded this e-mail that responds to the name-caller's posts concerning her e-mails:
>Whoever the poor obamabot is posting at a website questioning posts regarding Obama's family, and references to the Ford Foundation, should really get a grip.
>First, many, many kudos to Mitchell Langbert who lists who he really is at this site. He also has a host of websites that are of like opinion, and who work in concert to get to the truth in the news. I will not even mention who the other blogger is, because I would hate to direct any poor soul to his blog. He is unidentified, and has a whopping total of FOUR, yes, you read that correctly FOUR back-up blogs. What a pathetic obamabot he is. Hope the O is paying him well for his derelict services.
>He had a major problem with the transferring of Oyama Mabandla to a possible Mayandla ( nickname Maya?) Obama. He also doesn't seem to realize that very often in American culture, last names list first. (Actually he appears ignorant enough to never have attended school where so often last names are used first.) He hasn't a clue how many times we have found the family names juxtaposed just enough to give a hint it might actually BE someone other than a family member. Like Soetoro being changed to "Sutoro". Unfortunately for this person, we are wise to the game. He should read posts at the many sites who back up Mitchell. He might finally be "educated".
>I noticed he made no reference to what the "actual" Mayama Obandla was up to. Guess what.....the man linked to the same address as big O's mama has joined a group of land speculators in Africa. I'll bet they are busily getting their hands on every piece of property they are able to. Funny, because Oyama worked for just one year at an African airlines that had FINALLY turned a profit just before he took the reigns. A year later, and I believe a tidy sum of money later as well, the airlines did go belly up, and Oyama was gone to buy up properties. AMAZING!
>Of course, the obot never makes mention of why anyone would suspect that the name change seems more than fairly plausible due to the number of apparent aliases used by everyone in the SAD and O family. He also never takes the time to mention that the crux of the article was regarding the microfinancing that was going on, and most probably, not just in Indonesia. Loan a poor woman $70.00 to buy a sewing machine to hang all her family's hope on, and when or if she defaults, own the very ground on which she lives. If he had even bothered to check further, he would have found out all the properties found so far, (I am sure many are still missing from the public eye, but I trust that with the number of people still working on this, more will be found) that seem to end up in the hands of the SAD family under whatever name they are using at that moment in time.
>I know the little obot is worried about the suggestion of organ trafficking, but "sad" (no pun intended) to say, it is a means for people in third world countries to make money, and one has to just think that the numbers of doctors whose names are connected to SAD's "hints" (it was only a suggestion, not a full-fledged accusation) of what so many of us, who have seen how disgusting so much of this truly is, need to worry about. Let's just say.......we wouldn't be surprised.
>Poor little obot. If you had been able to DISprove anything, I might have had enough respect for you to post on your blog. However, after visiting your site, I was overcome with laughter. Those of us who KNOW how you bots act, are far too intelligent to fall for your idiocy. Honestly......FOUR "back-up blogs". My suggestion.... Get a REAL life!
Sunday, January 4, 2009
David's Proposal Re Obama Certificate
I just received the following e-mail:
Per your efforts to examine Obama's qualifications, may I encourage you to seek "verification" of Obama's "certificates", particularly focusing on what you KNOW is on those certificates. The privacy issue is only over what primary vital information you do NOT know.
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. provides for verification of what you think you DO know.
e.g., Based on school records citing "Barry Soetoro", adopted by "Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo"
Also known as Lolo Sutoro Mangundikardjo
Since they will only verify exact wording, it may take multiple tries, but eventually you can verify multiple items.
David L. H---n
See:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
"Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter."
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
" [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]"
In HRS 338-0018 see especially:
" (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: . . .
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"
--
About Vital Records | Marriage License | Marriage Performers | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships
How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records
All applications requesting certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates must generally be made in writing (application forms may be downloaded from this site - see below). Requests may also be placed for birth and marriage certificates on a limited basis through the Internet (www.ehawaiigov.org/ohsm). Telephone, FAX, or e-mail requests are not accepted.
Fees for certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates are identical:
$10.00 for the first copy of each certificate, and
$4.00 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
There is an additional fee for requests made through the Internet as follows:
$1.50 for a request of one (the first) copy of each certificate, if the requested certificate is found, or for the cost of conducting the search, if the requested certificate is not found, and
$0.25 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
Fees may be paid by cash (except for applications made by postal mail), money order, certified check, or cashier’s check - make money order and checks payable to the State Department of Health.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Fees must be paid by a charge to a credit card for requests made through the Internet.
All fees for certified copies are payable in advance and nonrefundable. If no record is found after a search is conducted, the fees are retained to cover the cost of the search.
Once an order has been received and processed, a $10.00 fee will be charged for any request to make changes to the order.
Apply In Person
Walk-in service is available:
Days - Monday through Friday (excluding holidays)
Hours - 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Location - Room 103 (1st floor) of the Health Department building, 1250 Punchbowl Street (corner of Beretania and Punchbowl Streets)
When applying in person, the applicant must show a valid government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
Certified copies are usually not issued on the day the application is made. Same-Day service may be provided upon presentation of written documentation establishing the need for urgency. Certified copies will normally be available for pick-up about 10 working days after the request is approved. The pick-up time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
Application forms are available in the building’s lobby area and should be filled in prior to coming to the counter in Room 103.
Apply by Mail
Send mail-in applications to the following address:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
When applying by mail, the applicant must include a photocopy of his/her government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL BE REJECTED AND RETURNED WITH THE APPLICATION TO THE APPLICANT.
Certified copies will normally be sent out within 5-8 weeks after receipt and approval of the application. The return time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide
An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:
Applicant's name, address, and telephone number(s);
Applicant's relationship to the person named on the certificate;
Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
Full name(s) as listed on the certificate;
The certificate’s file number (if known);
Month, day, and year of the event; and
City or town and the island where the event occurred.
For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother.
If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.
Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.
Application Forms
Application forms are available in a “fillable” Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 (or later) is required for using the fillable forms feature.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 is free to download and install on your computer by clicking on the button:
Download Request For Certified Copy of Birth Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Death Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Marriage Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Divorce Record
Further Information and Assistance
If you require further information about applying for certified copies of vital records or want to check on the status of an accepted request for certified copies of vital records, call (808) 586-4539 or (808) 586-4542 during regular business hours.
Per your efforts to examine Obama's qualifications, may I encourage you to seek "verification" of Obama's "certificates", particularly focusing on what you KNOW is on those certificates. The privacy issue is only over what primary vital information you do NOT know.
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. provides for verification of what you think you DO know.
e.g., Based on school records citing "Barry Soetoro", adopted by "Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo"
Also known as Lolo Sutoro Mangundikardjo
Since they will only verify exact wording, it may take multiple tries, but eventually you can verify multiple items.
David L. H---n
See:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
"Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter."
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
" [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]"
In HRS 338-0018 see especially:
" (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: . . .
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"
--
About Vital Records | Marriage License | Marriage Performers | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships
How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records
All applications requesting certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates must generally be made in writing (application forms may be downloaded from this site - see below). Requests may also be placed for birth and marriage certificates on a limited basis through the Internet (www.ehawaiigov.org/ohsm). Telephone, FAX, or e-mail requests are not accepted.
Fees for certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates are identical:
$10.00 for the first copy of each certificate, and
$4.00 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
There is an additional fee for requests made through the Internet as follows:
$1.50 for a request of one (the first) copy of each certificate, if the requested certificate is found, or for the cost of conducting the search, if the requested certificate is not found, and
$0.25 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
Fees may be paid by cash (except for applications made by postal mail), money order, certified check, or cashier’s check - make money order and checks payable to the State Department of Health.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Fees must be paid by a charge to a credit card for requests made through the Internet.
All fees for certified copies are payable in advance and nonrefundable. If no record is found after a search is conducted, the fees are retained to cover the cost of the search.
Once an order has been received and processed, a $10.00 fee will be charged for any request to make changes to the order.
Apply In Person
Walk-in service is available:
Days - Monday through Friday (excluding holidays)
Hours - 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Location - Room 103 (1st floor) of the Health Department building, 1250 Punchbowl Street (corner of Beretania and Punchbowl Streets)
When applying in person, the applicant must show a valid government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
Certified copies are usually not issued on the day the application is made. Same-Day service may be provided upon presentation of written documentation establishing the need for urgency. Certified copies will normally be available for pick-up about 10 working days after the request is approved. The pick-up time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
Application forms are available in the building’s lobby area and should be filled in prior to coming to the counter in Room 103.
Apply by Mail
Send mail-in applications to the following address:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
When applying by mail, the applicant must include a photocopy of his/her government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL BE REJECTED AND RETURNED WITH THE APPLICATION TO THE APPLICANT.
Certified copies will normally be sent out within 5-8 weeks after receipt and approval of the application. The return time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide
An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:
Applicant's name, address, and telephone number(s);
Applicant's relationship to the person named on the certificate;
Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
Full name(s) as listed on the certificate;
The certificate’s file number (if known);
Month, day, and year of the event; and
City or town and the island where the event occurred.
For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother.
If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.
Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.
Application Forms
Application forms are available in a “fillable” Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 (or later) is required for using the fillable forms feature.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 is free to download and install on your computer by clicking on the button:
Download Request For Certified Copy of Birth Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Death Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Marriage Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Divorce Record
Further Information and Assistance
If you require further information about applying for certified copies of vital records or want to check on the status of an accepted request for certified copies of vital records, call (808) 586-4539 or (808) 586-4542 during regular business hours.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Ex Post Birth Certificates Available in Hawaii in 1961
An Anonymous Poster to my blog just left the following message:
>People interested in this issue might want to look at this page from the Hawaii Department of Health.
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
>It shows that before 1972 when Hawaii was a territory that you could apply for a birth certificate for any child under 1 year of age.*
When I go to the link on the Hawaii website, it says the following:
>Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
>The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
>Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
How does this impact the claims of the Hawaii Health Department, Governor Lingle and the Obama campaign?
*Of course, Hawaii attained statehood in 1957, however, the law was not changed until 1972.
>People interested in this issue might want to look at this page from the Hawaii Department of Health.
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
>It shows that before 1972 when Hawaii was a territory that you could apply for a birth certificate for any child under 1 year of age.*
When I go to the link on the Hawaii website, it says the following:
>Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
>The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
>Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
How does this impact the claims of the Hawaii Health Department, Governor Lingle and the Obama campaign?
*Of course, Hawaii attained statehood in 1957, however, the law was not changed until 1972.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
United Justice Foundation Lawyer Threatens to Sue Obama Every Step of The Way
Bob Robbins forwarded this link to a Worldnet Daily article concerning Gary Kreep, chief of the United Justice Foundation. According to Worldnet Daily, Kreep stated:
"We will file lawsuits on [Obama's] actions, every time. As long as we have money, we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status,"
Kreep represents Alan Keyes in Keyes's current law suit against the California Secretary of state asking that the state prevent its 55 Electoral College votes from being cast until Obama's citizenship and related eligibility to hold office are resolved.
"We will file lawsuits on [Obama's] actions, every time. As long as we have money, we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status,"
Kreep represents Alan Keyes in Keyes's current law suit against the California Secretary of state asking that the state prevent its 55 Electoral College votes from being cast until Obama's citizenship and related eligibility to hold office are resolved.
Andy Martin Asks McCain Electors to Challenge BOCOLB
Andy Martin just sent me the following release:
(CHICAGO)(November 26, 2008) On November 7th Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from on Barack Obama. Martin, an adjunct professor of law, lit a fire that has begun to burn all across the United States as Americans respond by contacting Electoral College electors and demanding access to Barack Obama's original birth Certificate.
Fox News host Greta VanSusteren has chimed in by saying that all four national candidates should make their complete birth records available.
"It was a moment that had to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "Live on the Internet we created a spontaneous legal theory to justify questioning Obama's legitimacy at the Electoral College, and the American people have roared their approval." /Default.aspx
"There may have been an 'election,'" says Martin, "but the results of that election were clouded by ACORN vote fraud and Obama's steadfast refusal to authorize access to his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. What is he hiding? Until he provides access, he has no legitimacy to serve as President of the United States. Obama issued a laser-printed facsimile and falsely represented this was a 'copy' of the 'original' certificate to FactCheck.org. That was a bald-faced lie. Why did he lie to the American people? Why?
"All of Obama's preening and posturing since November 4th is just more of the same. There is no substance to the man. Every elector has a constitutional right to demand access to the original birth certificate before voting on December 15th.
"We will continue our efforts to bring former Senator Obama to justice in the courtroom of American public opinion. We are not going to let this turkey slip us the bird on December 15th."
(CHICAGO)(November 26, 2008) On November 7th Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin demonstrated the power of the Internet when he unleashed new demands for information from on Barack Obama. Martin, an adjunct professor of law, lit a fire that has begun to burn all across the United States as Americans respond by contacting Electoral College electors and demanding access to Barack Obama's original birth Certificate.
Fox News host Greta VanSusteren has chimed in by saying that all four national candidates should make their complete birth records available.
"It was a moment that had to be heard be understood," says the Internet's most influential political voice, Andy Martin. "Live on the Internet we created a spontaneous legal theory to justify questioning Obama's legitimacy at the Electoral College, and the American people have roared their approval." /Default.aspx
"There may have been an 'election,'" says Martin, "but the results of that election were clouded by ACORN vote fraud and Obama's steadfast refusal to authorize access to his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate. What is he hiding? Until he provides access, he has no legitimacy to serve as President of the United States. Obama issued a laser-printed facsimile and falsely represented this was a 'copy' of the 'original' certificate to FactCheck.org. That was a bald-faced lie. Why did he lie to the American people? Why?
"All of Obama's preening and posturing since November 4th is just more of the same. There is no substance to the man. Every elector has a constitutional right to demand access to the original birth certificate before voting on December 15th.
"We will continue our efforts to bring former Senator Obama to justice in the courtroom of American public opinion. We are not going to let this turkey slip us the bird on December 15th."
Cort Wrotnowski Sues Re Obama Election Fraud
The Citizen Wells blog site (h/t Bob Robbins) has put up a copy of a motion for a writ of mandamus filed by Cort Wrotnowski respecting the case of Cort Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz, alleging election fraud regarding Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:
“Connecticut Supreme Court
Cort Wrotnowski ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ms. Bysiewicz et al, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant
Pleedings and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of Connecticut
Dated this 2nd of November 2008
________________________
“In regards to the candidate Barack Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election Fraud.”
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
FACTS
The facts of this case are best understood as a chronological series of events. During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. In June 2008, an image of a document purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an official campaign web site for Barack Obama. (Exhibit X). Table 1 gives the basic chronology.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
August 2008
Phil Berg files suit in Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate
September 2008
Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to release the birth certificate
October 16, 2008
Plaintiff learns of new efforts to compel disclosure at the state level.
October 24, 2008
Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford Superior Court. Denied pursuant to 9-323.
Oct. 27-31, 2008
Plaintiff prepares and files with Connecticut Supreme Court.
Suspicions were immediately aroused when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the version of the birth certificate useful in answering the question.
See exhibits V,W,X.Y
Note that the “Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.
Note that that worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting.
Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able bodies supporters purported to the public that his “Certification” document was proof that he was born in Hawaii and therefore, “Natural Born.”
The exhibits V-Y before the court make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the same document most little league teams require to join their team. The brick wall is preposterous, so undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious magnitude.
That Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.
LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?
The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to the plaintiff:
“…I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that effect.”
She also asserts:
“Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States. Because this is a matter prescribed in the Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to U.S. Congressional action…”
Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!
Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;
2) Does the Connecticut Supreme Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?
Plaintiff asserts that precedent set in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994)) provides guidance to the court that they may act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.
From Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice
“Except for the complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232). Accordingly, in federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”
Clearly the Supreme court of Connecticut may if justified direct the Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.
HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF
Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level. It neither authorizes nor prohibits. In fact, it is silent on this important issue. The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)
We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution. When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well. If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level. The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.
Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.
She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words. Hers is a “sin of omission” argument. Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.
There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of State. Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.
From: Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.
… provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.
The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.
The bolded language in Sec. 9-3 demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.
The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day. She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy. Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever. As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.
Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections. Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.
Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up. That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest. Similarly, if an electoral crime is being committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do nothing. If Secretary Bysiewicz is unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the petitions of citizens.
States do not have the right to promote on the ballot presidential candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent candidates like Calero. She wishes to be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce his authentic birth certificate.
CONCLUSION: PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY
I Move that this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut, Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or appropriate hospital records. If such reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
This action is the only legal remedy available for Connecticut voters.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cort Wrotnowski
VERIFICATION
I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.”
Cort Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State:
“Connecticut Supreme Court
Cort Wrotnowski ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ms. Bysiewicz et al, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF CONNECTICUT STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant
Pleedings and Motion for writ of mandamus addressing Election Fraud in the State of Connecticut
Dated this 2nd of November 2008
________________________
“In regards to the candidate Barack Obama for Office of President in the State of Connecticut as Concerns Election Fraud.”
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
FACTS
The facts of this case are best understood as a chronological series of events. During the early part of 2008, there was growing pressure for Sen. Barack Obama to produce proof that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S. In June 2008, an image of a document purported as a “Birth Certificate” actually titled “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii bearing Barack Obama’s name was posted on an official campaign web site for Barack Obama. (Exhibit X). Table 1 gives the basic chronology.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE
August 2008
Phil Berg files suit in Pennsylvania seeking release of Sen. Obama’s actual birth certificate
September 2008
Sen. Obama and DNC refuse to release the birth certificate
October 16, 2008
Plaintiff learns of new efforts to compel disclosure at the state level.
October 24, 2008
Plaintiff’s suit filed in Stamford Superior Court. Denied pursuant to 9-323.
Oct. 27-31, 2008
Plaintiff prepares and files with Connecticut Supreme Court.
Suspicions were immediately aroused when no city, place, witnesses or other personally identifying documentation was shown on this version of the form. Forensic experts weighed in as to whether it was authentic or not but that is a mute point in that it is not the version of the birth certificate useful in answering the question.
See exhibits V,W,X.Y
Note that the “Certification’ version is worthless and stated so by the Hawaii government.
Note that that worthless “Certification” document is principally used for individuals born overseas to a Hawaiian citizen just like Berg had been asserting.
Mr. Obama has not left a paper trail for the public to follow forcing the public to demand proof. Mr. Obama and able bodies supporters purported to the public that his “Certification” document was proof that he was born in Hawaii and therefore, “Natural Born.”
The exhibits V-Y before the court make it plain that that claim of proof is patently false. Subsequent demands for the real Birth certificate fell on deft ears and multiple lawsuits to date have only yielded obfuscation, untold thousands of dollars spent by Mr. Obama on legal teams who used every delay tactic possible to avoid delivering the same document most little league teams require to join their team. The brick wall is preposterous, so undeserved and unnatural as an appropriate response to the people’s request that it leads to only one conclusion; voter fraud of the most audacious magnitude.
That Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to allow certified access to his birth, adoption passport and repatriation documents has defrauded millions of Americans and Plaintiff.
LEGAL ISSUES
1) Does the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, have the responsibility to protect Connecticut voters from election fraud, including national elections conducted within the state?
The Connecticut Secretary of State asserts in an email to the plaintiff:
“…I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws by filling a form with my office to that effect.”
She also asserts:
“Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States. Because this is a matter prescribed in the Constitution of the United States, and absent any authority and/or procedures in our state constitution, the question of the verification of a Presidential candidate’s status as a “natural born” citizen is a federal matter subject to U.S. Congressional action…”
Plaintiff asserts the Secretary of State has misread the law and is instead the state officer directly responsible for preventing election fraud against Connecticut voters in a national election. In this most important regard the Secretary of State has failed to act to secure the public confidence and avoid the appearance and actuality of fraud. There is no law restricting the secretary of state from investigating fraud as she claimed. Ridiculous!
Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977), quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906).;
2) Does the Connecticut Supreme Court have the responsibility to direct a state officers to prevent election fraud, if sufficient reason is shown?
Plaintiff asserts that precedent set in Connecticut (In re Election of the U.S. Rep. for the Second Congressional District, 213 Conn. 602, 618, n.18, 653 A.2d 79 (1994)) provides guidance to the court that they may act to resolve disputes involving election to national offices.
From Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court Section D Subsection 10.17 Procedure (a) Rules of Practice
“Except for the complaint, the statute and rules are silent as to the matters of procedure in original actions in the Supreme Court (C.G.S. 9-232). Accordingly, in federal election disputes the justices are free to fashion such rules as will expedite a fair and speedy resolution of the dispute”
Clearly the Supreme court of Connecticut may if justified direct the Connecticut Secretary of State or other state officer to take such actions as would be deemed sufficient and necessary to provide necessary remedy.
HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF
Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level. It neither authorizes nor prohibits. In fact, it is silent on this important issue. The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled: Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)
We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution. When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well. If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level. The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.
Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.
She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words. Hers is a “sin of omission” argument. Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.
There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of State. Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.
From: Connecticut General Statutes
Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.
… provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.
Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.
The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.
The bolded language in Sec. 9-3 demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.
The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day. She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy. Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever. As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.
Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections. Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.
Analogous Argument
If a crime is being committed and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t wait for the police to show up. That’s why we have Citizen’s Arrest. Similarly, if an electoral crime is being committed, and you have the ability to stop it, you don’t stand by and do nothing. If Secretary Bysiewicz is unclear on this issue, then we ask this court to clearly explain it to her in the form of a Writ of Mandamus since she has clearly ignored prudence and the petitions of citizens.
States do not have the right to promote on the ballot presidential candidates that violate the eligibility standards of the U.S. Constitution, but that is what Secretary Bysiewicz chooses to do. She has failed to provide Connecticut voters with the most basic protections against fraudulent candidates like Calero. She wishes to be consistent in her negligence by also neglecting to demand Sen. Obama produce his authentic birth certificate.
CONCLUSION: PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED REMEDY
I Move that this court would issue a writ of mandamus requiring that Connecticut, Secretary of State Bysiewicz immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as the appropriate Health Department and/or appropriate hospital records. If such reasonable documents as would establish place and date of birth are not made available to the Secretary of State by the time expected for certification of the election results, then the Secretary of State is ordered to declared that candidate as ‘not certified’ as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
This action is the only legal remedy available for Connecticut voters.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cort Wrotnowski
VERIFICATION
I, Cort Wrotnowski, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.”
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Phil Berg Says Write To SCOTUS Justices Re Birth Certificate
Phil Berg's office released this e-mail last week:
November 13, 2008
We have received a lot of emails asking what you can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.
You as citizens can individually address letters to all the Court Justices and address your concerns regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as the President of the United States according to the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.
United States Supreme Court
1 First Street NE
Washington DC 20543
The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito
Respectfully,
Lisa
Assistant to Philip J. Berg
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
Obamacrimes.com
November 13, 2008
We have received a lot of emails asking what you can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.
You as citizens can individually address letters to all the Court Justices and address your concerns regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as the President of the United States according to the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.
United States Supreme Court
1 First Street NE
Washington DC 20543
The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito
Respectfully,
Lisa
Assistant to Philip J. Berg
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
Obamacrimes.com
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Obama Birth Certificate: Turner Responds--Martin Counter Responds
Neil Turner Writes:
Andy; You asked us to let you know what we think about your column (below) and your arguments against Berg. My comments follow your statements:
‘Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.’
My comments: Berg’s lawsuit got Obama to publish a blatantly fraudulent and doctored (rendering it invalid) COLB, thereby implicating himself (Obama) in what may be the biggest attempted fraud in the history of our Constitutional Republic.
‘Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.’
My comments: Berg filed on 8/21/08, and his suit was ‘Dismissed’ for ‘lack of standing’ on October 27, 63 days later (not promptly dismissed as you state). This ‘unprompt’ ruling gave enough time to claim admission of the charges due to non-response by Obama (et al), and got him to produce his self-implicating blatantly false COLB.
‘When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.’
My comments: C’mon Andy. Crappy argument, especially when you now know that Jerome Corsi went to Kenya and confirmed it with his detailed research.
‘To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.’
My comments: A lawsuit? Against whom? Isn’t it just a petition to the court to release ‘alleged’ documents, that most assuredly will not be released, since no one believes that they actually do exist. Time is lost, nothing gained, and you start again.
You dismissed my suggestion that we get thousands of people to request any documents concerning this issue (under the Freedom of Information Act), instead relying on your single person request – which obviously will go nowhere, and will get no press coverage (like the refusal of thousands of requests probably would).
‘Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior.’
My comments: Your bashing of the only person who has gotten our concerns into 2 courts as an actual lawsuit (one being the SCOTUS) seems aberrant as well as abhorrent to those of us who sincerely want this issue publicized nationwide until justice (and our Constitution) is served!
And now, for you to ask the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate the conduct of Mr. Berg, seems most aberrant and abhorrent indeed.
Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.
My comments: It makes no sense whatsoever!
At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.
My comments: Which are???
‘So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money?’
My comments: What false claims? A $90,000 ‘Open Letter to Obama’ ad in USA Today will reach millions more people than a single-person FOIA request for non-existent documents in Hawaii, I would proffer. (3,000 people sending in $30 should just about do it. Please send yours today).
CLICK HERE to make your secure, (tax deductible) donation to the WTP Foundation.
Click here to see how much money we have raised so far. ($14,000 as of 11-12-08)
So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
My comments: I think that your arguments stink!
Please try to bury your hatchet for Mr. Berg (no matter what you think about him) and help us finish the work of keeping this ILLEGAL ALIEN POSEUR and IMPOSTER Obama from trashing our Constitution and our Nation. The job at hand is too big for this dissention in the ranks of our Patriots. (We saw this with the traitor Jim Gilchrist - co-founder of the modern-day Minutemen movement – and it did us no good).
Sincerely,
Neil Turner
Carlsbad, CA
Andy Martin Responds
Your letter is so fallacious as to be unworthy of serious response. Your claim that Berg's lawsuit got Obama to release a birth certificate is complete nonsense. Obama released his document months before Berg. Had Berg actually accomplished what you claim, he would have taken credit for it. Did he make such a claim? No.
With many Obama opponents in your state of mind, is it any wonder Obama won? The inability of his opponents to confront and admit reality is what helped Obama get elected.
Sadly, you refuse to admit the facts even when they are biting you in the nose. What will your excuse be when Berg is kicked out of the Supreme Court? Another conspiracy?
Andy Martin
Andy; You asked us to let you know what we think about your column (below) and your arguments against Berg. My comments follow your statements:
‘Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg's lawsuit were totally deficient.’
My comments: Berg’s lawsuit got Obama to publish a blatantly fraudulent and doctored (rendering it invalid) COLB, thereby implicating himself (Obama) in what may be the biggest attempted fraud in the history of our Constitutional Republic.
‘Berg's lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.’
My comments: Berg filed on 8/21/08, and his suit was ‘Dismissed’ for ‘lack of standing’ on October 27, 63 days later (not promptly dismissed as you state). This ‘unprompt’ ruling gave enough time to claim admission of the charges due to non-response by Obama (et al), and got him to produce his self-implicating blatantly false COLB.
‘When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said "I saw it on the Internet." Not good enough for a federal judge.’
My comments: C’mon Andy. Crappy argument, especially when you now know that Jerome Corsi went to Kenya and confirmed it with his detailed research.
‘To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai'i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.’
My comments: A lawsuit? Against whom? Isn’t it just a petition to the court to release ‘alleged’ documents, that most assuredly will not be released, since no one believes that they actually do exist. Time is lost, nothing gained, and you start again.
You dismissed my suggestion that we get thousands of people to request any documents concerning this issue (under the Freedom of Information Act), instead relying on your single person request – which obviously will go nowhere, and will get no press coverage (like the refusal of thousands of requests probably would).
‘Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg's behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg's misbehavior.’
My comments: Your bashing of the only person who has gotten our concerns into 2 courts as an actual lawsuit (one being the SCOTUS) seems aberrant as well as abhorrent to those of us who sincerely want this issue publicized nationwide until justice (and our Constitution) is served!
And now, for you to ask the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate the conduct of Mr. Berg, seems most aberrant and abhorrent indeed.
Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg's behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.
My comments: It makes no sense whatsoever!
At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.
My comments: Which are???
‘So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he "crazy" or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money?’
My comments: What false claims? A $90,000 ‘Open Letter to Obama’ ad in USA Today will reach millions more people than a single-person FOIA request for non-existent documents in Hawaii, I would proffer. (3,000 people sending in $30 should just about do it. Please send yours today).
CLICK HERE to make your secure, (tax deductible) donation to the WTP Foundation.
Click here to see how much money we have raised so far. ($14,000 as of 11-12-08)
So what is Berg's game? Let me know what you think.
My comments: I think that your arguments stink!
Please try to bury your hatchet for Mr. Berg (no matter what you think about him) and help us finish the work of keeping this ILLEGAL ALIEN POSEUR and IMPOSTER Obama from trashing our Constitution and our Nation. The job at hand is too big for this dissention in the ranks of our Patriots. (We saw this with the traitor Jim Gilchrist - co-founder of the modern-day Minutemen movement – and it did us no good).
Sincerely,
Neil Turner
Carlsbad, CA
Andy Martin Responds
Your letter is so fallacious as to be unworthy of serious response. Your claim that Berg's lawsuit got Obama to release a birth certificate is complete nonsense. Obama released his document months before Berg. Had Berg actually accomplished what you claim, he would have taken credit for it. Did he make such a claim? No.
With many Obama opponents in your state of mind, is it any wonder Obama won? The inability of his opponents to confront and admit reality is what helped Obama get elected.
Sadly, you refuse to admit the facts even when they are biting you in the nose. What will your excuse be when Berg is kicked out of the Supreme Court? Another conspiracy?
Andy Martin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
