Skip to comments.Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s
Posted on 12/30/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by wrastu
click here to read article
It’s a moot question because Bennett submitted all the same information as is on the record - and yet Onaka only mentioned Honolulu and none of the other things from the application.
He serves as long as he does TPTB's bidding."I stand corrected.
"Americas Historic First Martyred Black President and Ascended God"
Pretty much the only thing I fear more than the prospect of another four years with this enigma "at the helm."
“and yet Onaka only mentioned Honolulu and none of the other things from the application.”
And in your opinion it is because he cannot verify them and in my opinion it is because they are implicitly verified in the “Verification of Birth”.
We may never know the answer.
I hope you and your family have a happy and health New Year.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Onaka verified that the information on the White House image is also on the genuine record. The WH image says Oahu, so the HDOH record does too. That’s why it doesn’t make sense for Onaka to verify the truth of some of those claims on the White House image but not others. That’s why it has to be presumed that he wasn’t verifying the truth of ANY of the birth facts - but was only verifying that those claims are “from the record of birth”.
See, “verify the following items from the record of birth” can easily be interpreted to mean “verify that the following items are on the record of birth”. And the only way to make sense out of Onaka’s mention of some things from the BC and not others is if he wasn’t verifying the truth of any of it, but was only verifying that the claims are on the BC - which also explains why he only listed information which had Bennett’s “from the birth certificate” language applied to it, and didn’t say he verified anything from the actual application, which is known to be a request for the TRUTH of the claims to be verified.
“Verification” can be used to mean many things, depending on what specifically you’re verifying. The application is a request for verification of the existence of a birth certificate and verification of the TRUE FACTS RELATED TO THE VITAL EVENT. IOW, birth facts.
A person could verify that the “date filed” was Aug 11th whether or not the BC that was filed that day was valid or not. That’s because it is not a birth fact, it’s a processing fact. Same thing with the dates of the signatures. Those are processing facts. So is the BC#.
The fact of the matter is that unless both Verna Lee and Janice Okubo have lied about how the BC’s were numbered and they were in fact numbered totally at random (which defies what is claimed in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report AND the use of a Bates stamp), the HDOH has been changing around BC#’s. The only legal authorization for a new BC# to be issued to somebody who already had a BC# (like Stig Waidelich or Virginia Sunahara) is if law enforcement says they are in danger and a new BC has to be created in order to protect them - in which case a new BC# will be on the new BC. So the BC# switching strongly suggests that Obama was issued a new BC and had to be given somebody else’s BC# - supposedly for his safety.
And the kicker of that is this: in that instance, law enforcement can make up whatever “facts” they want and that’s what has to go on the new BC. So Eric Holder just had to say he wanted a BC made up that says it was filed on Aug 11th, was signed on Aug 8th by Dr Sinclair, etc etc.... and VOILA! There is is! None of it true, but all of it on a record at the HDOH as if it was true.
If that’s what happened with Obama, then none of those dates are necessarily true. But they are on the newly-created BC, and that is what Onaka verified.
What’s interesting is that Abercrombie started making noise in response to Judith Burges saying she was going to try again to get an eligiblity bill passed in AZ. Abercrombie said he was going to come up with the BC to clear this issue up, because it was going to cause problems in the 2012 election. Then there was the shooting that killed Judge John Roll, the judge who would have heard any challenges to the AZ eligibility bill that Abercrombie was publicly so worried about - and the Obama people were trying to make conservatives out to be these crazy, violent people. Just in time for Eric Holder to request a new birth certificate to be made, to protect Obama from these crazy Arizona birther-types...
But the new BC apparently wasn’t being created quickly enough. Abercrombie was asked by a columnist at the Star-Advertiser how his investigation was going and Abercrombie blustered around about finding something “actually written down” in “the archives”. That got Mike Evans wondering what was up so he called Abercrombie and Abercrombie told him he couldn’t find a birth certificate for Obama. So there was a serious problem holding up the creation of the new BC.
I suspect it was Abercrombie’s appointed HDOH Director, Neal Palafox, because next thing we knew (like about a week after the Mike Evans radio interviews, Palafox suddenly resigned and Abercrombie and the AG claimed that they hadn’t forced him to resign; Okubo said he resigned for personal reasons. But Palafox himself said he had no idea why he resigned. Eventually the liars were forced to admit they had forced Palafox to resign.
That allowed Fuddy the Yes-woman to take over and then we started to see real changes. All of a sudden “policies” that nobody had been obeying for the last 10 years suddenly cropped up, totally negating the statutes by keeping anybody from being able to see original birth certificates. All they were allowed to see was easily-manipulable computer printouts.
And then we started to see what we now know are switched-out BC#’s. Sunahara got his sister’s forged death certificate with a totally screwy BC#. Then Johanna Ah Nee showed up with a BC# that was screwed up. Then Stig Waidelich pulled a stunt with the HDOH and CNN to show a totally screwed-up BC#...
And then, with all these BC#’s switched around to make room for Obama, at last Obama’s forgery appeared. He has a real BC at the HDOH that claims those things, but apparently Onaka had the last laugh because a new BC can only be created for somebody who was actually born in Hawaii and Onaka knew they didn’t have a legally-valid record for Obama that would allow HI to determine that he was born in HI. Onaka knew that this new BC, if allowed to be presented as if it was valid, would be document fraud ON THE PART OF FUDDY, WHO FORCED HIS DEPT TO MAKE THE BC IN VIOLATION OF HI STATUTE.
Onaka has the responsibility to refuse to issue a certified copy of a BC he knows/believes was obtained through fraud. So he made sure that the copy that was sealed up in the envelope for Corley to pick up had the LATE and/or ALTERED stamps that were on Obama’s genuine, non-valid BC. Which is why the Obama people had to create the forgery - to hide the non-validity of the record.
So the timeline, the HDOH’s shenanigans, the forgery, the verifications.... they all make sense when you understand HI statutes and the evidence we have now.
No, it’s a very critical legal question. If Onaka complied with HRS 338-14.3 as he swore he did, there’s only one answer for it: because Onaka never verified Honolulu as the actual birth city, since the record is non-valid and he couldn’t certify any of the birth facts claimed on the non-valid record as being the way the birth actually happened.
If Onaka certifies a letter of verification that means “I verify everything you said”, that is legally a signed blank check, because the requestor could claim they submitted ANY facts and that Onaka verified them all without mentioning any of those facts specifically. Ken Bennett could fudge his request and say that he submitted the facts that Obama, female, was born on Feb 30, 1242, in Honolulu on the island of Hawaii, to Osama Bin Laden and Cleopatra - and bring forward Onaka’s verification to prove that all those facts were true, since Onaka had verified it all in one fell swoop without specifically mentioning anything except Honolulu.
That’s not how this stuff works. If Onaka doesn’t say a verification of “any fact” he doesn’t DO a verification of that fact. If I signed an affidavit saying “I swear to everything he said once” I would be laughed out of creation. That’s not how certifications and/or sworn statements work. If you don’t say it, you can’t swear to it.
Ditto for you and your family on the New Year. I hope 2013 is good to all of us.
“And then we started to see what we now know are switched-out BC#s. Sunahara got his sisters forged death certificate with a totally screwy BC#. Then Johanna Ah Nee showed up with a BC# that was screwed up. Then Stig Waidelich pulled a stunt with the HDOH and CNN to show a totally screwed-up BC#...
And then, with all these BC#s switched around to make room for Obama, at last Obamas forgery appeared.”
First - Obama’s certificate number revealed in August, 2008
Second - Waidelich’s certificate number revealed in April, 2011
Third - Obama’s long form BC revealed April 27th, 2011
Fourth - Ah’nee’s certificate number revealed September, 2011
Fifth - Sunahara’s certificate number revealed January, 2012
We can’t talk about the BC, Benghazi,Iran, Syria,or Hillary and all her ailments. Its all the fiscal cliff which zero won’t climb.
Sunahara started the pursuit for his sister’s long-form around the time that Fuddy started changing the rules. I’m not sure when he got the short-form, but he didn’t reveal it publicly until later. I don’t have access to some of my records, or I could be more specific about the timeframe. But Duncan Sunahara started getting the runaround from the HDOH around the time that Fuddy took over, according to Duncan’s statements.
But Waidelich’s was the important one, if Verna Lee is correct. If so, Obama was given the BC# of the 3rd person born in Honolulu after Susan Nordyke. It would be important that the person either be dead or go along with the swap - and either not have or else surrender the original BC they had been using their whole life. Waidelich’s mother said he requested a BC (in April, 2011 just days before Obama’s long-form forgery was revealed) because he didn’t have a long-form. Handy.
The agreement had already been made by the time the passport file was cleaned up in March of 2008, but the HDOH itself didn’t even have an Obama BC for Abercrombie to find until after January of 2011. They had been hoping the issue would just die away before the HDOH had to actually alter records. I can’t remember exactly, but I think it was mid-March when Micki Booth’s friend got a long-form and then the next week there wasn’t an option to order a long-form; the HDOH had changed that practically overnight just a couple weeks before Waidelich’s stunt was orchestrated with CNN and the HDOH...And all this came shortly after Fukino had given an interview with Michael Issikof claiming that the BC is “properly numbered” - revealing that BC#’s were at the front of her mind at the time...
The timeframe is actually quite revealing... especially when combined with the evidence we now have.
On page 1 of the four page analysis by Klayman he seems to infer that:
Onaka can not verify those facts
The question than becomes is can that be enough to take to court and stop obama from being sworn in?
What govt. agency or “who” has the authority or ability to change/alter/destroy records like this years ago?
You have my admiration and respect. for what its worth.
Wow great stuff, thanks.!!
Before June, 2007 when the colb was issued.
It helps to know and understand the context of Kobach's comments. It's not an official statement. He requested a third verification letter because Obama's attorney's refused to provide any evidence of any kind in response to the ballot eligibility challenge in Kansas. Kobach knew about the other two previous verification letters but since neither was admitted as evidence, the Kansas Objections Board had no evidence upon which to declare Obama to be eligible to be on the ballot. He also acknowledged the language in the previous verification forms was not legally compelling. I believe that's why he asked if the information was "identical" ... which Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. obviously punted.
The eligibility challenged was dropped, therefore the board could take no further legal action, but by that point, they had already requested a letter of verification. It's not really their burden to produce evidence for a candidate and second, such evidence doesn't satisfy the legal precedent for defining NBC as was brought up in the objection. Kobach failed to explain what legal foundation he was going to use to make Obama eligible, but he didn't have to worry about it after the objecion was withdrawn. The objections board consists of three members, so Kobach's opinion on what the third letter said is simply a personal opinion and doesn't represent the legal opinion of the board who had statutory responsibility to make an official determination. The problems Kobach acknowledged about the AZ and MDEC letters also applied to his letter, so it's not clear how he would have reconciled those issues had the objection not been withdrawn. As far as making a statement to the media, this was simply a political statement to appease potential voters.
Me too. I’ve had this fear since the start of the first four years.
I believe this may be the case if Obama's mama claimed her baby was born "en route" ... according the standard procedures, children born in transit, such as on a ship or on a plane, can claim the arrival city as the place of birth, even though they weren't born in that city. Thus, it's possible that Honolulu was the city of birth but officially the child was NOT born on the island. Second, if the baby was born while crossing the international dateline, then maybe they can't verify which day he was actually born on. That would explain why Onaka didn't verify the date of birth.
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.