Tweet
Obama lawyer warned against certifying eligibility
'For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself'
WND
Bob Unruh
9/3/2012
Excerpt:
"A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.
The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.
In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.
“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.
“At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”
Such verifications, if created, would be “perjurious,” Klayman said.
Arizona’s inquiry
The evidence he cites in the letter encompasses several issues, including the recent highly publicized exchange sparked by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who asked the state of Hawaii, where Obama says he was born, to verify the “natural born citizen” status of the likely Democratic nominee.
WND reported Bennett eventually “closed” his inquiry into the issue without getting any pertinent documentation.
Bennett formally inquired of Hawaii for verification of Obama’s birth records there, and when he received a statement from state officials announced his inquiry was closed.
“As to whether the president was born in Hawaii, personally I believe he was,” he said. “I actually think he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college.”
But he said all clearly was not above-board.
“I think he has spent $1.5 to $2 million through attorneys to have all the college records and all that stuff sealed,” Bennett said. “So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”
Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has formal investigation going on into the issue of Obama’s eligibility, and preliminary results have confirmed that the image of a birth document posted online by the White House is not real.
Path to conclusion
Klayman’s path to the conclusion that no one really can know wasn’t complicated.
He noted that the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka “failed” to provide verification to Bennett of Obama’s birth information.
“He did, however, verify that ‘the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.’
“Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record…’”
But Klayman explained the state law requires Onaka to furnish “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.”
Klayman explained that leaves Onaka no option and “the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so. Since he verified that those claims are on the record in the DOH files, the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’
“The only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not. There is no other plausible explanation,” Klayman said.
WND contacted Bauer’s firm, Perkins Coie, for a comment, but there was no response on the holiday today.
Altered
But Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states, “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”
“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.
Klayman’s conclusion is that “no one can state with any legal certainty that candidate Obama is even old enough to be president, much less that he meets the exclusively high bar of ‘natural-born citizen’ status, required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5.”
He noted at this point “No one can legally swear that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president; and because the DNC bylaws require the Democratic presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible, there is also, therefore, no party official who can legally swear that Mr. Obama is the ‘legally qualified candidate’ of the Democratic Party, under its own bylaws.”
...................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-law...g-eligibility/
'For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself'
WND
Bob Unruh
9/3/2012
Excerpt:
"A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.
The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.
In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.
“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.
“At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”
Such verifications, if created, would be “perjurious,” Klayman said.
Arizona’s inquiry
The evidence he cites in the letter encompasses several issues, including the recent highly publicized exchange sparked by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who asked the state of Hawaii, where Obama says he was born, to verify the “natural born citizen” status of the likely Democratic nominee.
WND reported Bennett eventually “closed” his inquiry into the issue without getting any pertinent documentation.
Bennett formally inquired of Hawaii for verification of Obama’s birth records there, and when he received a statement from state officials announced his inquiry was closed.
“As to whether the president was born in Hawaii, personally I believe he was,” he said. “I actually think he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college.”
But he said all clearly was not above-board.
“I think he has spent $1.5 to $2 million through attorneys to have all the college records and all that stuff sealed,” Bennett said. “So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”
Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has formal investigation going on into the issue of Obama’s eligibility, and preliminary results have confirmed that the image of a birth document posted online by the White House is not real.
Path to conclusion
Klayman’s path to the conclusion that no one really can know wasn’t complicated.
He noted that the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka “failed” to provide verification to Bennett of Obama’s birth information.
“He did, however, verify that ‘the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.’
“Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record…’”
But Klayman explained the state law requires Onaka to furnish “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.”
Klayman explained that leaves Onaka no option and “the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so. Since he verified that those claims are on the record in the DOH files, the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’
“The only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not. There is no other plausible explanation,” Klayman said.
WND contacted Bauer’s firm, Perkins Coie, for a comment, but there was no response on the holiday today.
Altered
But Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states, “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”
“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.
Klayman’s conclusion is that “no one can state with any legal certainty that candidate Obama is even old enough to be president, much less that he meets the exclusively high bar of ‘natural-born citizen’ status, required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5.”
He noted at this point “No one can legally swear that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president; and because the DNC bylaws require the Democratic presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible, there is also, therefore, no party official who can legally swear that Mr. Obama is the ‘legally qualified candidate’ of the Democratic Party, under its own bylaws.”
...................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-law...g-eligibility/
Comment