Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Obama Hustle
The Obama Hustle ^ | 12-30-12 | Jackv

Posted on 12/30/2012 10:45:35 AM PST by jackv

BREAKING NEWS – Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. with 31 comments

(Excerpt) Read more at theobamahustle.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: birth; birthcertificate; certificate; fraud; hawaii; humour; illegitimate; impeach; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Now it's official!
1 posted on 12/30/2012 10:45:42 AM PST by jackv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jackv

No, now it’s a rumor that the blogger says he has to verify.


2 posted on 12/30/2012 10:55:08 AM PST by MS from the OC (Obama taking credit for killing OBL is like Nixon taking credit for landing on the moon, John Bolton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

I’d be happier if he had a link to this ‘public certification’.


3 posted on 12/30/2012 10:55:28 AM PST by Salamander (I wear my sunglasses at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

Indonesian Go Home!

4 posted on 12/30/2012 10:56:55 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

The entire US Congress should be arrested for
misprision of felony.


5 posted on 12/30/2012 10:57:35 AM PST by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

The MSM will have to give this legs for anything to happen.


6 posted on 12/30/2012 10:57:40 AM PST by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv
Hawaii State Registrar? Is that the official who’s ultimately responsible for collecting,maintaining and disseminating “vital records”....birth,death,marriage and divorces certificates/decrees?
7 posted on 12/30/2012 10:58:53 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (When Robbing Peter To Pay Paul,One Can Always Count On Paul's Cooperation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

Paging Joe Arpaio and his Cold Posse........


8 posted on 12/30/2012 10:59:11 AM PST by eartick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv
>"It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law"

Contact yer Congress Critter Now!

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

9 posted on 12/30/2012 11:00:41 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr
The only news here is that the White House has acess to a time machine.

Only problem is that it works in 2 dimensions.

Here you see an image of Obama's BC coming out the slot of the machine.


10 posted on 12/30/2012 11:03:15 AM PST by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

Where and when did he make this public announcement? In his shower during his morning pee..or some other time?


11 posted on 12/30/2012 11:06:08 AM PST by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

I had a fake drivers license in HS that I used to buy beer. It looked better than Obamas BC.


12 posted on 12/30/2012 11:06:45 AM PST by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jackv

I hate citing the obvious but a country needs people within the government and in positions of legal authority that are willing to enforce it’s laws equally. Sadly that is not the case today in the US. Clearly there are only two options at this point in the US; either we the people capitulate to its’ tyrannical power and let government continue deleting our freedom and liberty or the power structure that controls the US government is made to capitulate to the laws set forth by the people in the ORIGINAL Constitution. It’s no longer even a question that one of those ends will be our reality.


13 posted on 12/30/2012 11:16:32 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv
Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible.

EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th. As with the Sandusky case, those with knowledge have legal responsibility to act, and that is now you.

Our President has committed perjury 6 times by swearing (in AZ, NC, and WV) that he is eligible, knowing that he has no valid HI birth certificate (and claiming a Kenyan birth in his bio until 2007), and let his spokesmen pass off two forgeries as genuine on his behalf. He knowingly allowed a decorated military surgeon to lose his life’s savings and retirement and spend 6 months in prison for simply wanting to know if his combat orders were lawful, or whether they Constitutionally had to come from Joe Biden instead – who OPPOSED the “surge”.

It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law – without which, none of your life’s work even matters because the laws you make will only be enforced when politically expedient to the powerful. A banana republic.Read the full story here.

Before It's News

14 posted on 12/30/2012 11:17:52 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

Lead, follow, or get out of the way!


15 posted on 12/30/2012 11:18:49 AM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jackv

KNOWN FELON

16 posted on 12/30/2012 11:24:38 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

A fitting parable......

“A Snake Is A Snake, Is A Snake”
I was once told a joke about a snake that was found in the snow, he was freezing from the cold, a young man found him and was afraid to pick him up because he was a snake. The snake started begging the young man to help him get warm because he was so cold. The snake told the young man that he could put him under his his shirt next to his body, so he could get warm; the young man told him no, because he was a snake, that bite people. well the snake begged and pleaded and promised not to bite him if he helped him. So, against the young mans better judgement, he picked up the snake that was almost frozen, rubbed him and put him under his shirt to keep warm. The snake enjoyed the warmth of the young man body, the snake got so warm and comfortable, that he remembered that he was a snake and bit the young man. The young man scolded the snake so badly for biting him and the snake replied, I’m sorry I couldn’t help myself, but you knew I was a snake when you picked me up.


17 posted on 12/30/2012 11:24:59 AM PST by snoringbear (Government is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jackv

This is just a rehash of a story published May 24th in the Washington Times....

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/freedom-press-not-free/2012/may/24/hawaii-state-registrar-onaka-birth-certificate-/


18 posted on 12/30/2012 11:30:18 AM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackv

19 posted on 12/30/2012 11:34:37 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
Verification of birth that “indicates” (line 1) Obama was born in Hawaii. Interesting because in light of the controversy and since it was issued specifically in order to quash such controversy, wouldn't “confirming” be a better choice of words over “indicating”? Just throwing that out there....
20 posted on 12/30/2012 11:47:13 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Errant

LOL I wish he was a fleeing felon.


21 posted on 12/30/2012 11:47:37 AM PST by healy61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
This story has been popping up on the Internet for months now -- at least since August. At first, there was a lot of bureaucratic jousting between different offices, a lot of "Do you have the right to this information?" and "Who are you to ask if I have the right to the information?" but it looks to me like Onaka did comply with the request in so far as he was obligated to do so.

From what I can gather Onaka certified that the information was on the copy of the birth certificate in the files, but couldn't certify that it was actually true. But why should he? That's not his job. If he accurately says that the copy is a copy of the document on file and the information given is that in the files, he's done his work. He's in charge of records, not in charge of what actually may have happened fifty years ago when the information was filed.

So now, this gets turned around into "he can't vouch the document," when it looks to me like that's exactly what he did. He may have been right or wrong, told the truth or lied, but if he was right and told the truth he did his job. Verifying what actually may have happened 5 decades ago isn't part of his job, and it's probably impossible to "prove" that Obama was born in Hawaii to the degree that bloggers expect and over the doubts that they have.

Verification of birth that “indicates” (line 1) Obama was born in Hawaii. Interesting because in light of the controversy and since it was issued specifically in order to quash such controversy, wouldn't “confirming” be a better choice of words over “indicating”? Just throwing that out there....

Well, no. Bureaucrats like to preserve their distance and their facade before the public. They use language they can hide behind, and eventually this becomes a habit and the habit becomes unbreakable.

22 posted on 12/30/2012 12:26:33 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

bttt


23 posted on 12/30/2012 12:35:19 PM PST by WhirlwindAttack (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jackv
Somehow the question of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen has morphed into a question of whether or not the Hawaii vital records registrar can verify his birth on Aug. 4, 1961. It's Obama's post-birth records that cause doubt about is eligibility.

Obama's original long form BC has a date accepted on Aug. 8, 1961. This indicative of the registrar accepting the affidavit signed by his mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator verifying the information submitted to the registrar is true and correct. This is in contrast to Obama's COLB with a date filed on Aug. 8, 1961; which indicates a court order preceded the creation and filing of the vital record by the registrar.

The difference between "accepted" and "filed" sounds like bureaucratic jargon, but it speaks volumes about Obama's post-birth record. The court will only intervene after hearing testimony and examining evidence indicating the original long form BC should be sealed and a new COLB should be created and filed.

In other words, examining the original content on the original long form BC goes to establishing eligibility for POTUS, as opposed to merely establishing how the court eventually ruled on Obama's birth place.

Other questions for eligibility:

Why was the original long form BC sealed?

If Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, does Hawaii have the Soetoro COLB on file?

Was the Soetoro COLB sealed and archived after BHO Sr. successfully complained the Soetoro adoption should be annulled in 1971

Obama's Catholic School record in Jakarta, Indonesia indicates Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian National. Was Obama's legal name Barry Soetoro and was he an Indonesian National in the mid-late 60's until early 70's?

Did a Hawaii Court annul the Soetoro adoption and change Obama's name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama II and list his paternal parent as Barack Hussein Obama in 1971, 1972?

What was Obama's citizenship when he enrolled in Occidental College?

24 posted on 12/30/2012 1:32:58 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

And why is the film record of airway arrivals for the week of his birth missing from the archives...?


25 posted on 12/30/2012 2:06:42 PM PST by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

“And why is the film record of airway arrivals for the week of his birth missing from the archives...?”

Good question.

We can’t determine Obama’s eligibility until his complete record of vital statistics is revealed. Onaka desperately wants to reduce the question of eligibility to a statement verifying Obama was born in Hawaii.

Only a Court can order an original long form BC sealed and archived for a living person. Why did the Court seal the original? Barry Soetoro has a Catholic School record indicating he was born in Honolulu, HI. Where is Barry Soetoro’s original long form BC?

There’s a redacted page in the BHO - Stanley Ann Dunham divorce record. Was the Barack Hussein Obama II original long form BC redacted from the divorce record when the Soetoro adoption was finalized and a COLB for Barry Soetoro created and filed?


26 posted on 12/30/2012 2:19:50 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jackv; All
"Beware of Hoaxes and possible scam artists
Posted on | December 30, 2012 | No Comments

There is an e-mail going around stating that AlvinOnaka confirmed that Obama’s ID is a forgery. It never happened. I received a copy of Onaka’s letter to Kobach and Bennett in my case against Kobach. Onaka never said that Obama’s papers are not valid. This is a wishful thinking or an attempt by someone to discredit us.

Additionally there is a letter by someone hiding behind a name ”Proof Positive”. This person is asking for money to send letters to Sheriff Arpaio and to Congress and convince them to act in regards to Obama’s forged IDs.

If you want to write to Arpaio or your Congressman, you can do it yourself. Why do you need to pay someone, who may be a scam artist. Moreover, as I said, Arpaio collected 7 million for his campaign. He went around the country showing forgery in Obama’s IDs and giving people an impression that he will be filling a criminal complaint before the election. Obama dismissed his law suit against Arpaio in August, Arpaio never filed any criminal comaplaint against Obama. People should not give Arpaio a cent more. Demand that he appear on January 3rd at the hearing with judge England, demand that he file a complaint with the DA, AG and US Attorney with his findings immediately or refund the 7 million that was collected under false pretenses.

Help me identify and expose the person hiding behind the news letter “Proof Positive”"

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=372395

27 posted on 12/30/2012 3:53:55 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Just when I had my hopes up.

Geeesh!


28 posted on 12/30/2012 5:19:01 PM PST by Jayster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Orly has been a determined worker and I admire that, but she hasn’t always gotten her details right. I suspect that she is so busy she has failed to make the FOIA requests to see Bennett’s COMPLETE request, or to look up the Hawaii statutes that govern how Onaka had to respond.

HRS 338-14.3 says that Onaka must verify any information submitted by a qualified applicant if he can certify that was the way the event actually happened - IOW if they have a legally valid record claiming that, since a legally valid record is prima facia evidence and thus has the presumption of accuracy (which is ultimately only overruled by evidence to the contrary).

Bennett sent in an application form for a verification, requesting that Onaka verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama. If any of those facts was claimed on a legally-valid record that specific fact would have to be verified by Onaka in his letter of verification, according to HRS 338-14.3.

The only one of those words that was even MENTIONED in Onaka’s verification was the word Honolulu (which shows that he was looking at the application and not just Bennett’s letter asking for ADDITIONAL verifications, since that letter didn’t mention Honolulu at all). But if Onaka was verifying that the birth city was Honolulu, then he would also have to verify that the birth island was Oahu, since Honolulu has always been on Oahu. He doesn’t. By this we can tell that all he verified through the use of the word “Honolulu” is the existence of a birth certificate which “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth. He’s verifying the existence of a birth certificate.

The fact that he leaves out all those other words (male, Aug 4, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama) - even though he verifies that those are indeed the CLAIMS on the record they have - means that the record they have has to be non-valid. If it was valid and claimed those things he would have had to verify each of those individual birth facts on his verification.

Attorney Larry Klayman’s letter to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer contains the documentation for all of this. It can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

Another explanation to make the laws easier to understand can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf

What people need to know is that Onaka discloses things not only by what he says, but even moreso by what he DOESN’T say. Look on his verifications and you never see the words male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama. The only LAWFUL reason for him to leave out those facts is if he can’t verify them as true, and the only reason he couldn’t verify them as true if they are claimed on a record (as Onaka verified for Obama’s claimed facts) is if the record itself is legally non-valid.

This is not wishful thinking, nor is it an attempt to discredit anybody. It is a simple statement of Hawaii law.


29 posted on 12/30/2012 9:49:45 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: x
Thanks for posting the image of the Letter of "Verification." It's important to read what Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. wrote and compare it to what AZ SOS Bennett requested. First off, Onaka writes "Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3" ... this statute says that 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." This means the DOH must verify the information that can be verified ... and they will not verify information that they cannot verify. This is key, because the DOH did NOT verify ALL of the information that was provided by Bennett.

Further, the statute says, "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." If there are "facts" stated by the applicant in a request for a letter of verification that the DOH does NOT verify, then those facts are not and cannot be certified.

First, Bennett sent to the DOH its own standard birth-record request form. That form contains information including the date of birth, names of the parents and place of birth. Onaka did not verify any of the information on this form with the possible exception of place of birth, but there are problems with the wording on item No. 1. First, it refers to a "birth certificate." At the bottom of the letter, Onaka uses the terms "additionally" and "Certificate of Live Birth," which would indicate that the former document is not the same as the latter document. The last statement, if it were comprehensive to Bennett's request, should actually be sufficient as a verification of ALL the facts. IOW, the comment about the COLB at the end is redundant UNLESS it is referring to a separate document with no known legal value. Again, Onaka says he is verifying "pursuant" to the statutes.

Second, Bennett asked if the attached PDF was a true and accurate copy of the original birth record on file. Onaka does NOT verify this information. Instead, he says that the information in the PDF "matches" the "original record" in the files, which has no specific legal meaning. Part of Onaka's job (and/or his predecessors) is to certify birth records as "true" or "correct" or "accurate." He did not do this. Likewise, several months later, KS SOS Kobach recognized that this verification was inconclusive, so he requested his own letter of verification asking specifically if the Obama PDF was "identical" to original record on file. Again, "pursuant" to the statutes, Onaka must verify this information. But, in his reply to Kobach, he did NOT say the record was identical. His failure to do so means that the PDF is NOT identical and is NOT a true, correct or accurate copy of the birth record.

Something else that's important to note is that the DOH website on Obama points to specific departmental rules that include rules regarding foreign-born children who are adopted in Hawaii. IOW, they seem to be indicating that Obama was foreign-born and that he was adopted, which starts to explain why his PDF cannot be completely verified, and is therefore is legally invalid.

30 posted on 12/30/2012 9:52:33 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: edge919
It looks like you are quibbling with the language. If Onaka "verifies" a list of 12 items, specifying that a birth certificate exists with a certain name and place of birth and continuing to list 11 other items, many people would assume that Onaka was "verifying" that all of those items were on the birth certificate.

Of course, it could be a tricky ploy: some or all of those 11 items might not actually be on the birth certificate and Onaka's language might be a clever legal way of appearing to verify that they are without actually doing so.

But it could also be just his way of doing things. Understand that there would be one way of referring to items on the usual "short form" computer generated document and another way, less used today, of referring to items on the original certificate and any xerox or PDF produced from them.

Onaka's language may just reflect the awkward and unusual nature of the situation, rather than any intent to deceive. Any way to convey his meaning in language would probably come into question if you go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

Or there may be some legal or bureaucratic desire to cover himself from legal challenges without intent to defraud, which results in a clumsy phrasing. Or the truth may be somewhere in between, the information verified being correct, but something else concealed.

You could be right, but the chance that you are is less than they were years ago when this whole thing started. Enthusiasm for minute scrutiny of documents has declined over the years. For one thing, a lot of the comments about the document released being an "obvious forgery" just don't hold up.

People who didn't know anything about typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind, people who couldn't see how an image of a document bound in a book would be curved, people who couldn't even draw a straight line for Pete's sake, were claiming that they could easily see how the pdf was faked, and this has really hurt the credibility of the charges -- at least with me.

31 posted on 12/31/2012 9:54:09 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x; edge919
"For one thing, a lot of the comments about the document released being an "obvious forgery" just don't hold up."

Smile!

 

TXE record


32 posted on 12/31/2012 11:41:43 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Your tenacity is admirable, but unfortunately your efforts to expose the fraud will not come to fruition.

The key to exposing him has always been the media (at large), just like it was with the far less of a crime Watergate break-in. Without media pressure on the elected "representatives," the issue is nonexistent in the eyes of the politicians. Clearly, the media is fully on his side and wouldn't dare seek the truth in this case. The so called "conservative" media isn't even willing to go there.

For a comparison, look at the Fast and Furious crime. If the media were legitimate in seeking the truth, Holder would have been ousted long ago. Yet, he remains in light of Issa's attempts to get to him, because of the lack of public pressure brought about by exposure in the media. Then, there's the "NBPP" case of clear voter intimidation caught on film. Most of the media was silent there as well. Result, nothing came of it. Benghazi will no doubt turn out the same way.

Barry's the first (half) black president that was popularly "elected." Because of the slavery issue in this country, the powers that be have determined that it's acceptable for Barry to usurp the presidency for 8 years.

The media is against us on this issue, which they have successfully stigmatized.

Not a single person in the judiciary nor congress will give this issue the light of day it clearly deserves. That much is clear, after 4 & 1/2 years of trying....by many.

33 posted on 12/31/2012 12:03:02 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jackv

I see no evidence of a new official statement. If this claim is based on the inference from his letter to Secretary Bennet (which is what I think) it is not an affirmative statement, it is an inferred statement, and therefore not persuasive as the headline would lead us to believe.

If you have a link to a new official statement, I apologize and will read with great interest. I fear the reality is that people are simply wasting our time with this made up news.


34 posted on 12/31/2012 12:04:44 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

We deserve the government we elect. If there is not one member of Congress out of the whole lot of them who will stand up now that Onaka has confirmed that Obama’s BC is non-valid, then this country is over; all that’s left is to see who gets the juicy chunks from the carcass.

That may well be what happens. If it does, it will happen over my dead body. All I can do is issue the warning; they ignore it at the peril of us all, and the resulting destruction will be on their hands, not mine.


35 posted on 12/31/2012 12:36:29 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: x

The following were requested to be verified and aren’t even MENTIONED on Onaka’s verification: male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.

The only lawful reason for them to be left off is if they cannot be verified. And yet Onaka verified that those are the claims made on the HDOH record.

So why were those things all left off?

The legal presumption of regularity is that a routine procedure complies with rules and protocols. In order to claim otherwise (to overcome the presumption of regularity) you have to have evidence to the contrary.

So what evidence is there? The 1960-64 birth index? That has been proven to be altered to include legally non-valid records. The birth announcements? Those have been proven to have been tampered with. Fukino’s statements? She never claimed that the record she saw was legally valid.

What evidence is there that Onaka didn’t do exactly what he certified (swore to) in this verification: comply fully with HRS 338-14.3?


36 posted on 12/31/2012 12:44:08 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jayster

Orly doesn’t know what is going on with this. Larry Klayman and other attorneys have confirmed that this is what Onaka’s verification means, based on Hawaii statutes. His explanation is in a letter that he sent to DNC Attorney Bob Bauer, which can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf


37 posted on 12/31/2012 12:49:10 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Inferred statements are all Hawaii statute allows the registrar to make when confirming that facts presented for verification are not known to be true.

Short of being put on the witness stand where the judicial rules exempt Onaka from the protocols of Hawaii statutes and HDOH rules, this is the strongest statement that Hawaii law allows Onaka to make.

If that’s not strong enough for people to believe then their epistemology will NEVER allow them to believe when Hawaii discloses that birth claims are not legally valid.

I do agree that it would be stronger to get Onaka on the witness stand and have him say flat-out that the record is not valid. That hasn’t happened yet because nobody has been able to compel him to testify. But that doesn’t negate that this is the strongest (only, in fact) action Onaka is legally authorized to do in disclosing Obama’s situation.


38 posted on 12/31/2012 12:57:11 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Honolulu being on Oahu, I don't think we have to worry about that, and do you have any evidence Obama wasn't born male?

I'm not an expert on this. From what I can find online we have a copy of a page of Bennett's request and a copy of a page of Onaka's reply, and they line up pretty well.

What was asked is answered. Apparently there may have been another page in the request. Do you have an image of that or of any other page in the reply?

It looks like Onaka gave a blanket verification of the information on the copy to an overall request for verification and then only gave precise answers to the items Bennett specifically asked him about. So blame Bennett for not asking the right questions or enough questions.

There's a certain amount of bureaucratic comedy here. Bennett was only authorized to asked and Onaka only authorized to answer certain questions, so what they say isn't going to match up with more general birther concerns.

39 posted on 12/31/2012 1:31:40 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: x

The media only published half of Bennett’s request. You can see the whole thing at the end of Klayman’s letter to Bob Bauer, posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

A verification is not about what you or I know about geography or Obama’s gender. The point is that if a person submits a fact to be verified, Onaka HAS to verify it if he can. And beyond any question/debate he failed to verify male, Aug 4, 1961 (which is critical to eligibility), Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama (which are also critical to eligibility).

The only lawful reason to leave those things out is if they are not claimed on a legally-valid record. Onaka verified that they ARE claimed on the record at the HDOH. That leaves only one reason for those facts to not be verified: the record itself is non-valid.

There’s no such thing as a blanket verification. The statute says that ANY submitted information has to be verified if it can be certified as the way the event actually happened. That means each individual fact. The way to separate out the facts that are true from the facts that are aren’t is by verbally saying every fact that is true and leaving out every fact that isn’t. Eliminates all the guesswork.


40 posted on 12/31/2012 1:41:51 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

Indonesian Go Home!

To Kenya!


41 posted on 12/31/2012 1:44:29 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The point is that if a person submits a fact to be verified, Onaka HAS to verify it if he can.

That is your theory. But it wasn't Onaka's understanding of his role. Look at how long it took before each of the document images (or whatever they are) was released. The understanding of the registry about its own role and duties was and isn't what you thought or think it is.

I've had some trouble with the Klayman documents, but he has a similar problem. He's always jumping to conclusions, always assuming that there are no alternatives to his own assumptions. When somebody confidently keeps saying "the only possibility is ..." it may be

I will try to find the Hawaiian law about this after the holiday, but given the history of all that's happened to this point, I don't think you are right about specific and blanket verifications.

42 posted on 12/31/2012 2:00:31 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: x

How do you know what Onaka understood about his role?

What I’ve stated is what is in Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3, which can be seen at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm and which says (keep in mind that the word “shall” means it is obligatory; there is no discretion):

§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 a maximum of 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; am L 2010, c 55, §1]


43 posted on 12/31/2012 2:15:41 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: x
"do you have any evidence Obama wasn't born male?"

Do you have any evidence that he was?

44 posted on 12/31/2012 4:38:29 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: x
It looks like you are quibbling with the language. If Onaka "verifies" a list of 12 items, specifying that a birth certificate exists with a certain name and place of birth and continuing to list 11 other items, many people would assume that Onaka was "verifying" that all of those items were on the birth certificate.

Right, it's supposed to "look like" he's "verifying" all the items on the PDF of the long-form, but then he finishes with the "additionally" statement, claiming the information on the PDF "matches" the original record on file. Why would that be additional to what was in the list?? Why list out the 12 items minus the other three or four, and then add that statement?? And why does it NOT say the PDF is a true copy??

Of course, it could be a tricky ploy: some or all of those 11 items might not actually be on the birth certificate and Onaka's language might be a clever legal way of appearing to verify that they are without actually doing so.

But it could also be just his way of doing things. Understand that there would be one way of referring to items on the usual "short form" computer generated document and another way, less used today, of referring to items on the original certificate and any xerox or PDF produced from them.

This isn't a very good explanation because the short form is supposed to be derived from the long-form and second, the list of 12 items includes several things that are NOT on the short form, three, SOS Bennett never requested a verification of the short-form, and four, the short-form has an official name: "Certification of Live Birth." Onaka does not use this term in the letter of verification. He does use other discrete and separate terms: birth certificate, Certificate of Live Birth, and "original record in our files." Let's remember that former DOH director Chiyome Fukino referenced multiple records in one of the news releases that was supposed to confirm the authenticity of Obama's COLB. And also remember that she said his long-form was half-handwritten. Obama's PDF is obviously NOT half-handwritten. There may be all kinds of different documents on file ... some are "original" but this doesn't mean they were created in 1961.

Onaka's language may just reflect the awkward and unusual nature of the situation, rather than any intent to deceive. Any way to convey his meaning in language would probably come into question if you go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

No, the DOH stalled for two months before responding to Bennett's request AND they insisted that he filed his request in a specific way. Second, this doesn't explain why Onaka ignored the items that are on the DOH's standard birth-record request form.

Or there may be some legal or bureaucratic desire to cover himself from legal challenges without intent to defraud, which results in a clumsy phrasing. Or the truth may be somewhere in between, the information verified being correct, but something else concealed.

This is part of the reason I mentioned the adoption rules that are referenced on the DOH's Obama webpage. There may be things that are being concealed by law ... but there IS an intent to defraud because the DOH knows this information is being used in regards to Obama's eligibility. What is concealed has an impact on Obama's nationality and eligibility. There's a reasonable public interest in providing full disclosure of Obama's records in spite of any contrary state laws.

You could be right, but the chance that you are is less than they were years ago when this whole thing started. Enthusiasm for minute scrutiny of documents has declined over the years. For one thing, a lot of the comments about the document released being an "obvious forgery" just don't hold up.

People who didn't know anything about typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind, people who couldn't see how an image of a document bound in a book would be curved, people who couldn't even draw a straight line for Pete's sake, were claiming that they could easily see how the pdf was faked, and this has really hurt the credibility of the charges -- at least with me.

I'm not addressing the issues of forgery here, just what the letter of verification tells us and more importantly, what it purposely refused to verify. I think it's silly to presume to know what anyone else knows about "typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind." There are plenty of obvious red flags in Obama's PDF and it doesn't take any special expertise to recognize that.

45 posted on 12/31/2012 7:00:05 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
It looks like that's what he did. He gave a general or overall verification that the certificate existed and the copy contained the same information and then verified certain points that he was specifically asked to check.

He wasn't obligated to do anything more or other than that. In law and politics and bureaucracy, people don't do favors for those who are assumed to be "on the other side." Unless there's a court order, which I don't think there was, they do the absolute minimum required by law. That's the standard procedure, and I don't think you can conclude anything from that.

Also, as some of the commenters on other sites have noted, there are real problems with attesting that a document and a copy are "identical." Two pieces of paper (or a piece of paper and a computer graphic) aren't literally the same thing. You can verify the information, but going further than that is problematic and not required by the law.

46 posted on 01/02/2013 1:48:24 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Why would that be additional to what was in the list?? Why list out the 12 items minus the other three or four, and then add that statement??

I don't have all the paperwork in front of me, but it looks like he verified the information on the document in question matched and then that the specific items he was asked to verify matched. If the AZ SOS didn't ask the right questions, Onaka wasn't going to volunteer anything he didn't ask.

And why does it NOT say the PDF is a true copy??

That is what he apparently did at the bottom of the piece of paper that the PDF is supposed to be a copy of so he's not going to do it again.

So far as I can tell, this time he stuck to what the statute said:

(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.

He wasn't going to reverify something that he already (more or less) verified.

Let's remember that former DOH director Chiyome Fukino referenced multiple records in one of the news releases that was supposed to confirm the authenticity of Obama's COLB. And also remember that she said his long-form was half-handwritten. Obama's PDF is obviously NOT half-handwritten. There may be all kinds of different documents on file ... some are "original" but this doesn't mean they were created in 1961.

Could be, and if that's true, the matter should be examined more closely. Fukino may have known what she was talking about and might actually have seen a document different from the one that was presented (in PDF copy) to the public.

I don't have all the answers, and don't need to go on making objections. It's just that the whole "obvious fraud" thing got on my nerves. If it's a fraud, it's not an awful one, not something that amateurs could readily detect as one, and not one singled by a hidden happy face.

47 posted on 01/03/2013 4:04:06 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: x
I want to be sure that I'm following the logic here.

If Person 1 asks if a copy of a received document is the true copy of a document in state files, and Person 2 says that the information on the received document matches the information in the state files, that is not the same thing, right?

Person 2 is getting around stating that the received document is an exact facsimile of a state-issued document or not, by leaping directly to what's contained in the document's lines. Would that be a correct assumption?

Would that not raise suspicions about the authenticity of the document itself, regardless of the information contained on the document?

Furthermore, Article IV Section 1 says:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Arizona should have been given direct access to the original public records, absent Congressional action. Hawaii's state privacy laws do not supercede Arizona's Constitutional "full faith and credit" access to Hawaii's records. And yet, Hawaii turned away Arizona's legitimate officers who went to Hawaii to inspect the actual public document.

Does that look like the actions of a state with nothing to hide?

-PJ

48 posted on 01/03/2013 4:29:48 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. Source

So as I understand it, "full faith and credit" means Arizona has to accept that Hawaii's laws and judicial decisions apply in Hawaii. I don't know how far that applies to public records -- there are arguments to be made on both sides -- but Arizona can't use the clause to undercut Hawaii's account of what its own records say. The clause would tend to support Hawaii more than Arizona in this case. More here.

49 posted on 01/03/2013 4:47:32 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: x
Arizona can't use the clause to undercut Hawaii's account of what its own records say.

I think I agree with that statement as far is it is limited to effect in Hawaii, but we're now talking about those records' effect in Arizona on Arizona law.

I know it's never been tested this way, but the Article speaks to how those records would be "proved," that is, Congressional action to the manner of proving. So the Constitution did not automatically imply that a state was forced to take another state's word on the matter.

Arizona could have demanded first-hand proof by visually inspecting Hawaii's records, if only to force Congress to exercise its power to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved."

-PJ

50 posted on 01/03/2013 5:10:53 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson