Skip to comments.PPS Video: Major Players To Expose Obama's Eligibility; Sheriff Joe Aiming For Prosecution? (Arpaio)
Posted on 01/13/2013 7:08:32 PM PST by Seizethecarp
click here to read article
You’re choosing to ignore what Onaka has already disclosed. The information contained in the White House image is NOT “identical to” the information in the HDOH record. The White House image is a forgery.
It wasn’t forged to change some information; it was changed to DELETE some information - specifically the information showing that the record itself is legally non-valid.
Onaka’s disclosures have already told us what the White House did and why.
The only lawful reason for Onaka to refuse to verify ANY of the items requested is if he lawfully can’t, because he can’t certify that that’s how the event really happened. He would not verify ANY item from the actual request form = a form which cannot be interpreted as anything but a request for verification of the TRUTH of the facts submitted for verification.
That tells us everything we need to know. He would not verify anything as being the way the event actually happened. That’s not my theory. That’s what the law says. He SHALL PROVIDE verification of the existence of the record AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION.
Everything else could be interpreted as a request for verification that those claims are merely on the birth record at the HDOH. Which legally means nothing, since the record they have is legally worthless.
What evidence do you have that Onaka violated HRS 338-14.3? Because that’s what you’re accusing him of - getting this verification wrong. What is your evidence against him?
“Remember, Richard Nixon was in his second term when he was impeached and removed from office. This is not over with yet”.
Keep in mind that It wasn’t the Watergate burglarly that brought Nixon down. It was the cover-up, the obstruction of justice.
I’m grateful for the fighters, too. Godspeed to them all.
That's possible, we don't know. It might also be the case that nothing substantive was changed.
Just for the record: 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.
What Onaka did was verify the existence of the certificate and the substance of the certificate (birth date, subject, etc). He did not verify all of the facts that he was asked to verify. I am not a lawyer so I don't know what you are asking or why you are asking me. Why don't you rephrase your question? In any case he was asked by persons with a legal interest in the record and he gave a partial answer. There's no reason to doubt the facts that he did provide. He did not verify all the requested information. I do not know the legal significance of his failure to verify all the facts.
You said: “What Onaka did was verify the existence of the certificate and the substance of the certificate (birth date, subject, etc).”
Where did he verify the substance of the birth certificate - for instance, the birth date? He verified the existence of a record which claims a Honolulu birth. The critical facts are gender, DOB, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name. Where did Onaka ever say what any of those true facts are?
The actual Letter of Verification:
The PDF that Nero posted above this post verifies the existence of a certificate for Obama born in Honolulu. The gender is not verified but does not seem critical, nor does island since the city is verified. The time is there, but not the date and the date is critical. Not sure about the parents' names, why are those critical?
The most critical verified fact is that Obama was born in Honolulu. There may indeed be some sort of caveat that Onaka left out. So there are two questions in my mind, what are the legal ramifications of evasiveness if any. Second what would cause a 1961 BC to say Obama was born in Honolulu if he was not born there? What other process would create such a certificate? I heard theories in 08 about that, but don't keep up.
Regardless of the evasiveness in Onaka's answer, the most critical question of birth place is answered in the affirmative. Any theory that says otherwise has to explain how Onaka can legally say that.
The alleged father was a Kenyan.
The alleged president was born in Honolulu. A natural born American.
Beside the verification to SoS Bennett (linked by Nero)there are two other verifications.
In both of those Dr. Onaka verifies the information on the pdf matches the information on the original.
These are the only Hawaii verifications that have been posted to the net. So we have no idea what’s the standard format for a verification.
The form that SoS Bennett sent to Hawaii is the standard form used to request a birth certificate. The items on the form are normally used by the DOH to locate the correct BC to be verified.
1) On a normal verification (not Obama’s) would Dr. Onaka list all the items on the request form?
2) Or would he simple say “I verify we have the original vital record for so and so on file at the DOH indicating birth in Hawaii.”?
3) Are the request form’s items implicitly verified by the fact that they used those items to identify the one correct BC containing that info?
On Bennet’s rquest form, he entered the following info:
Name: Barack Hussein Obama, II
DOB: August 4, 1961
Place of Birth: Honolulu, Oahu
Fathers: Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mothers Maiden Name: Stanley Ann Dunham
He also requested the following information be verified:
Department of Health File: 151 61 10641
Time of Birth: 7:24 p.m.
Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
Age of Father: 25
Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
Age of Mother: 18
Birthplace of Mother: Wichita, Kansas
Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
Date accepted by local registrar: August-8-1961
Butter’s contention is that those last items are only a verification that the original BC claims these items. But couldn’t you use the same argument even if all the items (request form and extra items) had been listed on Dr. Onaka’s verification?
And wouldn’t that hold true for every verification issued by Hawaii?
How would you very know whether or not there was a big red “ALTERED” stamped on a particular BC by just looking at a verification?
Could there be legal reasons that Dr. Onaka cannot use the magic word “identical” and those reasons have nothing to do with the legal validity of the BC? For example, the coping and scanning process and the creating of the pdf all cause image distortions would they still be legally identical?
If in coping the original onto the green security paper was the image reduced to fit on the paper? If so would it still be “identical”?
On SoS Bennet’s verification, Dr. Onaka did not list the items on the request form, but he did verify that those items are on the original BC held by the DOH.
Additionally, I 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.
Does that mean that he is verifing that all of the items on the request form match the information on the original BC?
“Matching” is totally irrelevant for legal purposes. The “information” on my $3 bill would match the “information” on anybody else’s, but none of them would have any legal value. “Matching” what’s on a legally non-valid record means nothing.
The application is used to find the correct record, but Bennett clearly asked that the information in that application be verified. Onaka did not verify that information. To verify it, you have to say it. If you don’t say it, you don’t verify it.
We would know there was no “LATE” or “ALTERED” stamp on the record if Onaka said, “I, Alvin Onaka, verify that the Hawaii DOH has a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama, II. I 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.”
Or he could say, “I, Alvin Onaka verify that the HI DOH has a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama, II and verify that the following are his true facts of birth: Gender: male DOB: Aug 4, 1961 (etc)...”
The point of it is what exactly he says he is verifying. Nowhere does he say he’s verifying anything as true. And he doesn’t even mention the core pieces of information, which were all on the actual application.
“Information” is the CONTENT, not the presentation of it. Take the dates that Bennett requested to be verified “from the birth record”. He requested them in a certain format, but Onaka responded with the date in the format EXACTLY AS IT IS ON THE WHITE HOUSE IMAGE. He could still verify that the INFORMATION Bennett gave was what was actually on the BC because the format is irrelevant. No matter how you format the date it is still the same physical day, and that is the INFORMATION.
Onaka would not verify that the INFORMATION contained in the White House image is identical to the INFORMATION contained in the HDOH record. This isn’t talking about syntax or appearances (such as copying irregularities); it’s talking about the content. The content is not identical.
“the following are his true facts of birth”
How could he possibly verify that the facts are true? He wasn’t there. All he can verify, all any registrar can verify, is that the facts on the presented certified copy are the same as on the original birth certificate.
“The content is not identical.”
So in box 6c on the pdf is the entry “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and Dr. Onaka says that matches the entry on the original. So are you saying that the entry might not be “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” but something else?
Butter, you are in contact with Larry Klayman, why not have him request a verification? He should meet the requirements of §338-18 (g) (4)
Have Dr. Onaka verify the following:
Box 1a - Barack
Box 1b - Hussein
Box 1c - Obama, II
Box 2 Male
Box 3 single
Box 4 - no entry
Box 5a - August 4, 1961
Box 5b 7:24 p.m.
Box 6a Honolulu
Box 6b Oahu
Box 6c Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Box 6d yes
Box 7a Honolulu
Box 7b Oahu
Box 7c Honolulu, Hawaii
Box 7d 6085 Kalanianaole Highway
Box 7e yes
Box 7f no entry/blank
Box 7g no
Box 8 - Barack Hussein Obama
Box 9 African
Box 10 - 25
Box 11 Kenya, East Africa
Box 12a Student
Box 12b University
Box 13 - Stanley Ann Dunham
Box 14 Caucasian
Box 15 18
Box 16 Wichita, Kansas
Box 17a None
Box 17b no entry/blank
Box 18a - Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
Box 18b 8-7-61
Box 19a David A. Sinclair
Box 19b 8-8-61
Box 20 Aug-8 1961
Box 21 V. K. Lee
Box 22 Aug 8 1961
Box 23 no entry/blank
Would that satisfy you?
If claims are made on a legally valid record, the claims are prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and are legally presumed to be true. If the record is legally valid the “call on the field” is that the claims are true, and the burden of proof is on the person challenging those claims. If there isn’t enough evidence to overcome the presumption of truth, then the ruling on the field stands. And all Hawaii birth records are prima facia evidence EXCEPT those that are “late” or “altered”.
If it was filed way late or had major pieces of critical information changed, it is legally suspect. HRS 338-17 says that those records have no probative value unless and until they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body and the probative value determined. The HDOH doesn’t do investigations. They just keep records. And they flag late and altered records so that everybody will know that the State of Hawaii considers the claims suspect. The law says that the evidence has to be sorted out in a legal setting (settings which are subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence) before those birth certificates are worth ANYTHING, legally speaking.
If the record is late or altered it is NOT prima facia evidence. The claims are NOT considered to be true. The burden of proof is totally shifted. The “call on the field” is that the claims are NOT true, and it is up to the registrant to overturn that call - to present his/her case to a judge and try to convince the judge that the record has any evidentiary value whatsoever.
All the cases so far have assumed that Obama has a prima facia record - because you wouldn’t expect the 1960-64 birth index to include records that are legally worth as much as toilet paper. But the HDOH altered their birth index so it would include non-valid (legally worthless) birth certificates also. And now Onaka has revealed that Obama’s BC is one of those legally-worthless records that was put into the 1960-64 birth index. The record itself is so suspect that Onaka cannot lawfully vouch for the accuracy of any of the claims on it.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. That’s what Klayman informed DNC Counsel Bob Bauer of - and Bauer is a lawyer so knows darn well that this is true. So did the MDEC attorneys, which is why they wanted to focus on “matching” - because “matching” is the best Onaka can verify, since the record itself is legal trash. It is literally a $3 bill, and the attorneys knew darn good and well that they were asking if the “information contained in” the White House $3 bill MATCHES the “information contained in” the HDOH $3 bill. It’s a totally irrelevant question, because they are both legally worth nothing.
That same concept - presumption of truth - applies to Onaka’s verification. The legal “call on the field” is a presumption of REGULARITY - that is, that routine requests are handled in compliance with the law. To overcome that presumption of regularity, you have to have evidence that the request does NOT obey the law. IOW, Onaka is presumed to be accurate, unless you have evidence to overcome that presumption. The burden of proof falls on those who want to say that Onaka “just forgot” or some other such thing. Right now, the legal presumption - the legal “call on the field” - is that Onaka complied with HRS 338-14.3 as he swore on the letter of verification, and only verified what he lawfully could. If he didn’t verify something it was for the only reason allowed by HRS 338-14.3: because he CAN’T, because the claim is not found on a legally-valid record.
Klayman is too busy; I can’t get his attention right now.
He would have to request verification that those are the true facts of birth for Obama.
But at this point, after having 2 verifications which indicate the same thing, it would still make a score of 2-1 against Obama’s record being valid - and if Onaka changed his story at this point it would call into question ALL his communications.
No matter how you slice it, the only way this thing can be legally resolved is by having the record presented as evidence where Federal Rules of Evidence apply - and having ALL the pertinent records examined. That means the microfilms, the paper records, and the computer transaction logs for ALL HIS VITAL AND CITIZENSHIP RECORDS - including AT LEAST his BC, passport file, and draft registration, and should also include his college records or anywhere else where he may have submitted some proof of citizenship.
Because the HDOH itself has been caught in multiple instances of law-breaking (including at least the falsification of the 1960-64 birth index and the changing of at least 4 BC#’s from August of 1961, as well as hiding records that were required to be public, claiming policies that were not made public and thus could not be in effect, etc)..... all the processing would have to be examined as well. We have to find out who was telling the truth about BC numbering - Okubo, Verna Lee, or neither. And the only way to know that is to look at multiple years of randomly-selected microfilms. The computer transaction logs for those other 3 August 1961 BC’s would have to be examined also, to see exactly what processing was done, when, and by whom. Etc.
We’re talking deep doo-doo and crimes that have been committed, and it’s going to take a lot of unwinding to get to the bottom of this mess. That’s what has to happen. Legally speaking.
It could not be “filed way late” we know it was recorded and “late” certificates most be non-recorded.
Box 6c - “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”
What is the situations that get this entered into Box 6c?
Could the grandparents go to the DOH and say - Our daugther had a baby at Kapiolani Hospital and we would like to register him?
Could Obama go to the DOH in 2007 and say I was born at Kapiolani Hospital and I want tpo register my birth?
Is that even reasonable?
BC#’s for at least 4 children born in Aug 1961 have been altered. The BC#’s they currently have on their BC’s at the HDOH could not have been on those BC’s in 1961 - according to either of the 2 contradictory numbering methods described by past and current HDOH spokesmen.
That means that the HDOH is altering BC#’s. The only place the statutes allow for somebody to get a BC# that’s different than the one they are originally given is if law enforcement says that a totally fake new BC needs to be created to protect the registrant from danger. In that case, the totally false BC will say whatever law enforcement says it needs to say.
None of it true.
That is how Obama got all that stuff on a BC at the HDOH. If he was really born at Kapiolani, there would be no need for the record to be either late or altered.
And when were these numbers switched - 1961 or later?
Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when.
(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.
Assigned a “new number” not someone else’s number and filed by that new number.
What precisely did they do? (what is a birth index, etc). Please use terms like book, paper, etc. so we can understand. There is a lot of evidence for a piece of paper submitted in 1961 placed in a book with pertinent info on it (and possibly info we have never seen) that has been xeroxed, signed, sealed and sent out. Those certified copies unfortunately have not been viewed by anyone trustworthy, but there is ample evidence that they the certified copies exist.
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.