Friday, September 10, 2010

Why Pelosi and Germond Signed a Different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii

While the media is all hyped up about the potential moment of a pastor performing the burning of a Koran, there is other investigative news out there that is not getting proper attention!

Butterdezillion: Certificate of Nomination Summary


Why Pelosi and Germond Signed a Different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii***

Based on the outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, Canada Free Press broke a story showing that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.

First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.

It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.

Read it all HERE.

These two comments by Butterdezillion are quite informative, too:

Yes, I do remember him. He’s pretty busy these days but I’ve been in contact with him in the past. His postings of the 2000 and 2004 DNC and HDP certifications were what enabled me to start making the connections that led to my own research on this. It’s neat how each person plays a role, and how interconnected it all is. I love it that we need each other, and that it helps us stand firm together. The worst feeling in the world is feeling totally alone. Divided we fall.

Hawaii doesn’t care whether it’s the state or national party that certifies eligibility, as long as somebody does it. It really shouldn’t matter either way because in order to be compliant with the DNC rules the Constitutional eligibility requirements have to be met, but there’s always the legal wrangling over whether somebody having to be eligible means that somebody has to CHECK whether he’s eligible. To sign an oath means you bear witness to the fact that you KNOW something to be true. There is no way ANYBODY could know Obama was Constitutionally eligible – if for no other reason than he has no legally-determined birth facts based on the Hawaii BC. The only way Pelosi and Germond could know Obama is even old enough is if they saw his Kenyan BC (in which case they would also know he was not a natural born US citizen) or if they required Obama to submit his amended BC to a judicial or administrative person or body so the probative value could be determined.

I just read this morning that SC requires Constitutional eligibility to be verified, and that the SC Democratic Party certified that. So I need to get the links for that and update the post to reflect that there is one other claim of Obama’s eligibility being verified. But the SC Dem Party has the same dilemma as Pelosi and everybody else: an amended BC has no legal evidentiary value so if they saw the BC they knew they couldn’t certify anything, and if they didn’t see it then they were swearing they knew the truth of something they couldn’t possibly know the truth of.

That amendment screws up every legal argument these people might try to make, because it means that Obama has no legally valid birth certificate claiming he was born in Hawaii.

The only defense I could offer for Chief Justice Roberts is if he and the other members of SCOTUS have been told that if they ruled wrongly Soros and the Islamists would create a financial panic which would destroy the entire world economy. I know it sounds crazy. I’m still mulling it through in my mind, but there’s a lot that would be explained if such a thing was the case – not the least of which are the blatant breaches of judicial ethics on the part of at least SCOTUS and Judge Carter, if not also Judge Robertson, and the obviously bad judicial reasoning used in the various cases. When somebody as ignorant as me can spot the legal inconsistencies and violations of precedent, you know it’s blatant.

And these judges doing these blatant acts may be their way of signaling that their decisions are being made under duress. Putting in a zinger so people will smell a rat and know something’s not right. A lot of us are infuriated by those zingers, but that may be exactly what the judges need us to be, might be what they’re aiming for – not to deliberately make us mad, but to give us ammunition to show that the decisions and process are corrupted.

The people arguing that those zingers are actually wise or ethical are Obots counting on people to not check out the code of judicial ethics or the precedents or actual laws being ruled on. What serious attorney would be caught dead supporting Robertson’s claim that a case was frivolous because the issue had already been Twittered? Using Twitters to make a decision would be a breach of judicial ethics – ex parte communications. Every law scholar knows that, and not one serious law scholar would be caught dead supporting Robertson’s decision.

Robertson is stupid and crooked enough that he might possibly have made a stupid argument (he is, after all, one of Clinton’s “Magnificent Seven” who have conspired to take the cases to protect Clinton’s political buddies) but to use what is such a blatant violation of ex parte rules is beyond mere stupidity. It could only be a deliberate red flag, obvious because of its absurdity and illegality.

SCOTUS having a private meeting with Obama when cases involving him were pending is another breach of ethics, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s a red flag put out to show the world something is wrong. Sort of like Alito apparently pretending to Orly Taitz that he knew nothing of the eligibility cases even though Thomas later mentioned in an unsolicited, serious comment (later covered by a smile) that SCOTUS had been evading the eligibility issue. They knew these cases were before them, and Alito acting ignorant threw up red flags; Orly immediately questioned whether the SCOTUS clerk had hidden information from the justices. Scalia’s red flag was perceived, which may be exactly what he hoped for, doing the only thing he thought he could to protest what they’ve done while Soros holds a gun to the neck of the country and threatens to shoot if SCOTUS doesn’t obey orders.

So I’m going to withhold judgment on SCOTUS. I have a nagging feeling that they’ve been shown that Soros and the Islamists have a gun to the nation’s economic neck, which will be fatally fired if SCOTUS doesn’t dance the charade Soros tells them to dance.


Hat Tip:

Butterdezillion

*** The Obama File has photocopies of the two different nomination
certificates:

The
Obama File: Eligibility: Pelosi Certification


Compare to a 2004 Certification:

2004 HDP Certificate

*******

See most recent posts at Butterdezillion. It's about lawlessness, people!

Butterdezillion

*******

1 comment:

jbjd said...

butterdezillion got it all wrong. Want proof? Read this.
http://jbjd.org/2010/10/12/back-up-birthers/