Skip to comments.The Obama Hustle
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 Obamas 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 ...
LOL I wish he was a fleeing felon.
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.
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?
And why is the film record of airway arrivals for the week of his birth missing from the archives...?
“And why is the film record of airway arrivals for the week of his birth missing from the archives...?”
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?
There is an e-mail going around stating that AlvinOnaka confirmed that Obamas ID is a forgery. It never happened. I received a copy of Onakas letter to Kobach and Bennett in my case against Kobach. Onaka never said that Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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"
Just when I had my hopes up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.