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
Nobody has the authority to change BC#’s. The only authority given in the statute is to create a new BC with a new BC# - not to steal a BC# from anybody else.
The HDOH has been lawless beyond what most people would believe. It was that lawlessness that made me realize I had to go public with what I was finding out, which is why I started my blog. It wasn’t just about Obama any more; it was a battle for the very rule of law. And since the day I started out my blog with that point we’ve all unfortunately seen the lawlessness expand into all areas of life, like a cancer that has almost totally taken over the body. The lawlessness I started out sounding crazy for talking about is by now an acknowledged reality among most conservatives and gradually even liberals like Oliver Stone are having to realize it as well.
It can’t go on like this much longer. We’ll be reaching critical mass soon.
The COLB is a forgery as well. If the HDOH was truthful in their UIPA disclosures, the birth record was amended in late 2006 or early 2007 - before that COLB was supposedly printed out at the HDOH. And that amendment would have to be noted on the face of the COLB - but wasn’t. Also, the “seal” doesn’t distort like it should if it was really on a piece of paper and then folded and held at that angle to the camera. I did experiments with real paper and there is no way that the “seal” on the Factcheck photos was on that paper when it was photographed.
Since the COLB is a forgery, we have no idea whether it was made from a genuine COLB and if so, what had to be altered. So the COLB doesn’t tell us anything about when anything was done. The first that the BC# appears is in the photos taken at Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters in a couple different shootings, with the camera’s time-clock being altered to make it look like it was all done in one shoot. The first shoot seems to have been done just days before the 3rd/final breach of Obama’s passport file.
Bluecat6, correct me if I’ve remembered anything incorrectly.
Thanks for providing that context. Do you have a link for Kobach’s acknowledgment of the problems with the previous verifications?
Onaka verified that the info listed on the White House image is also listed on the record at the HDOH, so Aug 4, 1961 and Oahu are both on the record they have. So that can’t be the reason to not verify those “facts”.
It would be in the Q&A part of the eligibility hearing, if there’s transcript. There was a stenographer there, but I don’t know if the state of Kansas posts the transcripts on its website.
He can only verify information as it is stated by the applicant. That’s the way the law is written. Having information on a record doesn’t mean it’s a fact.
I agree and you work, by the way, is nothing short of brilliant and impeccable both here and on your blog.
Many here have concentrated on the legal side of the BC issue and IMHO have proven the case of a phony bc not really acknowledged by Onaka.
From what I have read it goes sort of like this. Zero was born elsewhere,probably Kenya.
To counter that claim which collapses the house of cards, holder,FBI,Secret Service or some individual/agency decided to change or recreate,invent, create paperwork in Hawaii to continue the lie.Zeros entire existence is done Pinocchio style.It's a huge mountain of lies with a base of shifting sand.
It's always been up to us to bring the pile of lies down but difficult to do with all the variety of deceptive techniques they use to divert attention/control the media etc.
Politically here's what I see going on. And, if I'm too far out on the ledge please let me know!
I bring up the political side since it's all the regime cares about from Axelrod on down to the bottom which is zero.
IMHO,what the regime does best is to divert peoples attention while running out the clock.I think we are being played by the regime one more time.
I think they know as previously stated here earlier that once the various states have certified the election it will be near impossible to impeach Obama and collapse the house of cards they have built. Along with the media and other interested parties who are behind the entire USA takeover it will be near complete. So the stakes are incredibly high.
IMHO, we are all being played once again by the regime.Just like they tried to use the pawn Susan Rice to pretend that it was the video not the willful killing of four men in Benghazi they are using the fiscal cliff to divert our attention from the certification issue of obama. Once zero is certified for a second term lots of stuff goes away or gets incredibly harder to prosecute.Its all about running out the clock.
1. Once the votes are certified the discrepancies in the BC will be that much harder to enforce.If Klayman can't get the election put on hold or stopped before the date its basically over.
2.There is a lot invested currently in Hillary Clinton. She does not want to testify about anything to do with Benghazi.Certify the election and bring in John Kerry and much of that jeopardy goes away. It's going to be real hard to bring her in as a private citizen and make much of anything stick especially if she lawyers up. Even worse we have a weak congress. Hillary "is" 2016 for the left. The stakes are high for the road to communism.
3. The entire destruction of the US from obamacare on down is at stake if zero is not confirmed. In addition, the voter fraud in several key sates from Fla. to Va, Ohio, Penn. is going to be that much tougher to prosecute with the commies back in power.
4. IMHO, once again the regime has played us by diverting attention from the certification of his presidency to the phony fiscal cliff. The willing media lap dogs are playing into the con as well.
5. In an ironic twist this is the muslim way as well. They love to do things in plain sight and use our assets to destroy us. Anyone remember 911? This is the final stages of 911. They take over for another four years and by the end if they successfully get Hillary in office she can collapse the economy for Soros currency manipulations if it hasn't already happened by then and who knows how much control the MB will have worldwide by then.
Lots at stake simply by letting our legal process continue to certify their illegal ways.
The COLB pictures first presented by Joe Miller and Jess Henig and Fact Check in August of 2008 are not photos of an authentic COLB. That is also easily shown under relatively easy scrutiny.
Thus this is also a clear example of official document fraud. And that fraud is perpetuated by Alvin Onaka.
For Mr. Onaka there is no grey area. He can not hide behind the labyrinth of regulations and laws of Hawaii. He has the responsibility to know what is and is not an authentic state of Hawaii record. And when he is aware of and has had reason to personally inspect and validate the record, its history and associated supporting documents and evidence he has a duty and responsibility to clarify or call out any and all frauds, misrepresentations, half-truths and lies. Or to validate without any qualification the authenticity of a presented document OR image of a supposed authentic document.
This he has not done. It would appear that Mr. Onaka is an active participate in document fraud if he does not stand behind the LFBC image (which he can not since it is a digital creation) or the COLB pictures.
For Mr. Onaka - THERE IS NO GREY AREA.
Could it be this?
Here is a copy of the transcript (starting on page 84).
Personally, I do not see where SoS Kobach questioned the validity of the previous verifications.
Unless I missed something these are the only relevant exchanges:
Kansas Hearing Transcript starting on line 20 of page 120
SECRETARY KOBACH: I would note that there is that this case similar cases have been raised in other states, and I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi, and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii certifying certifying that the birth certificate on the website of the White House is consistent with or Im not sure I cant remember the exact phrasing but contains the same information as the certificate.
MR. BRYANT: The Information matches I think is what that letter
SECRETARY KOBACH: Information matches, yes, the information matches the one on file. One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question.
And at line 7 of page 126
SECRETARY KOBACH: Well, I agree with the Attorney General that it is disappointing that the legal representatives for the Obama campaign did not provide a more robust response as far as certification or other legal documents. My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table. But I understand your point, Mr. Attorney General, that the standard is going to be high regardless of whether such documents are present. If we did do that we would have potentially Monday to reconvene and evaluate whatever documentation was presented. Im merely suggesting this as an option. We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form.
I didn't say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications. I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling. That's exactly what he's acknowledging when Kobach says, "One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question," and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
If the other verifications were compelling, he wouldn't need to seek "some kind of certification." He said in what you quoted that he already inquired about that information including the MDEC letter of verification that was "in our packet." Kobach and the objections board clearly did not feel that what they aleady had was compelling. Kansas law says they are supposed to make a decision at the time of the hearing, but instead Kobach postponed any decision by the board until he could gather something more compelling. Personally, I believe they knew they didn't have a strong enough legal foundation for denying the objection as it was presented, especially in how NBC is defined, so they were trying to buy time to come up with something/anything that could get them off the hook.
“I didn’t say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications.”
“I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling.”
That’s not how I read it. The only verification they had in their packet, as far as I can tell, is the copy provided as an exhibit in the objection.
“My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table.”
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. It’s not like he is saying “maybe we can get something more definitive.” Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didn’t feel their verifications were not legally compelling?
There was no copy provided as an exhibit. In the part you quoted, Kobach says he made an inquiry for this information.
I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi, and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii ...
Neither the objector nor Obama's counsel provided that to him.
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. Its not like he is saying maybe we can get something more definitive.
He acknowledged that Obama's lawyers failed to provide a "robust response" to the objection (as in, they provided NO evidence). But, he says specifically:
One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question.
This indicates that Kobach isn't confident he has enough information, not just a hard copy, to resolve the "factual question." But, no one was asking him or the body to resolve any factual questions. Their job is to respond according to law.
Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didnt feel their verifications were not legally compelling?
Because he wanted to see that the information was actually certified. That's the legal standard for birth evidence when it's actually presented to a legal body. That's why he kept saying they needed to "to seek some kind of certification" and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
The Objections Board already had three days to prepare for this hearing. They should have had this information, but they obviously didn't realize how weak Obama's response and their own was going to be in the face of this challenge. The only real "factual" information that mattered in the challenge was that Obama was born to a foreign national who did not have permanent domicil in the United States and who never became a U.S. citizen, and under whom Obama already acknowledged foreign citizenship on his own website. No letters of verifcation or certified documents would overcome these facts, unless it could be shown Obama had a U.S. father. Obama's counsel did not make this argument.
“There was no copy provided as an exhibit.”
Sorry, my mistake, I thought this was the packet sent to Kansas in the objection.
“Objection to the Certificate of Nomination of Barack Obama to appear on Kansas General Election Ballot - filed by Joe Montgomery, Manhattan”
Appendix E is the MDEC verification.
And in the transcript Attorney General Schmidt said, “I’ve reviewed all the material you submitted and listened carefully to your testimony.”
Kobach said he had something in his packet that was “given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii.” Appendix E doesn’t list the court as a recipient. Appendix E was an exhibit to show that the verification was missing language pertinent to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which explains why it was not legally compelling. Again, the lack of compelling evidence is why Kobach felt compelled to get his own letter of verification from Hawaii and it’s why he talked about contacting Mississippi and Arizone for CERTIFIED evidence. What part of that is unclear??
But Appendiz E was given to the Board by the objector - right?
And Appendix E is the Hawaii verification that was given to the Mississippi Court by the lawyers for Obama, right?
They are the listed recipients
“Recipient of Verification: Scott J. Tepper and Samuel L. Begley, attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Party in Taitz et. al. v. Democratic Party of Mississippi [sic], et al, No 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.)”
So are you saying that when SoS Kobach says “and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii certifying”, he is not talking about the Mississippi verification that was in the material submitted by the objector but a different Mississippi verification sent directly to the Mississippi Court by the Hawaii DOH?
In other words, you are saying that there are in fact four certified verifications (Arizona, MDEC, the Mississippi Court and Kansas).
Courts don’t do their own investigations, so someone would have had to request Hawaii send directly to the court a verification. That would be reflected in the docket for that case.
Why if he already had this new verification did he say “We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form.”? Arizona and Mississippi could not send him certified copies unless they decided to send him their original Hawaiian documents.
IMO, when he talks about the one in the packet, he’s talking about Appendix E, not some new verfication.
He would not know the provenance of that document. So seeking additional information would be the prudent thing to do. Looking at one of the other objections - Mr. Sawyer’s, they took a lot of testimony and evidence to determine the residence of a candidate, so I’m not surprised that they would try to get additional info before making a decision.
Placemark - crawling back from bad flu.
"He would not know the provenance of that document. So seeking additional information would be the prudent thing to do."you're agreeing with me. This shows that Kobach acknowledged the MDEC letter of verification was NOT compelling evidence to make Obama eligible to be on the Kansas ballot. That's what I said already.
Yes, they had a chance to do this in three days prior to the hearing. At the hearing itself, Obama and his counsel were no shows. For some reason Kobach took it on himself to represent Obama. When Kobach said, "I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states ..."; this means he did some sort of fact gathering or fact checking prior to the hearing. He should have already obtained whatever additional documentation, certified or otherwise, was needed because the law says the board is supposed to make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing on the same day.
BTW, Kobach also claimed he had studied up on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but he had NOTHING to counter what the SCOTUS specifically said in that decision: the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Obama's attorneys relied exclusively on the 14th amendment, but that claim is contradicted in Wong Kim Ark and by the caselaw in the seven other Supreme Court cases that were cited.
Well, I’m reading this on Jan. 9, after Congress has certified the election. I hear a group of birthers are threatening to impeach John Roberts, which isn’t going to work. Your work is appreciated, though. Obama will be sworn in however and it’s perhaps the biggest shame in the history of man.
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.