Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion

Thank you for the short version of your argument. One question: how would Onaka verify the facts surrounding a 50-year-old birth other than verifying what’s on the birth record in their files? As I understand it, you want him to have done something more than check Bennett’s list and the enclosed copy of the BC against the original birth record. But what would that be?


70 posted on 12/31/2012 11:05:19 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

No, it’s not the HDOH’s job to figure out what really happened. All they do is store the records, provide certified copies of records, and tell people whether or not particular birth facts are found on a valid record - in which case the record is prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and the legal presumption is that the facts are true. If somebody wants to claim otherwise they have to come up with evidence to prove that the claims are not true.

But when there’s a problem with the record - when it was completed a year or more after the birth or had major claims changed without a legally-valid reason - Hawaii considers the claims suspect, and HRS 338-17 says that the probative (legal evidentiary) value of the record has to be determined by somebody legally authorized to examine evidence according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

It is precisely because the HDOH CANNOT do that kind of investigation that Obama legally HAS to present the non-valid record as evidence before somebody who CAN. And it can’t be Congress or anybody legislative. It has to be a judicial or administrative person or body; they are the people who are bound to the Federal Rules of Evidence and are thus legally able to make a determination of the probative value and of the actual birth facts.

Onaka is just confirming that the record doesn’t meet the legal standards to be legally valid (be considered prima facia - “on its face” - evidence, evidence which is legally taken at face value unless there is evidence that the claimed facts are not true). Since Obama has no legally-valid (prima facia) record, the legal burden of proof is on him to prove that these facts are true, instead of the burden of proof being on whoever wants to say these facts AREN’T true.

IOW, the legal presumption with a non-valid record is that the facts are NOT true, and it is up to Obama to provide evidence to prove that they are.

Does that help you understand what’s going on here?


71 posted on 12/31/2012 11:37:55 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“But what would that be?”

Here is a simple answer for anyone in the Hawaii DOH that has access and has seen the actual, real ‘records’ and their supporting documentation.

If those ‘records’ and supporting documentation has any material that is different or if the history of the ‘record’ over history been amended, replace, altered, etc. and varies or is different or has additional information beyond the (blatant) forgery posted at the WH then they should indicate that the WH posting is a fraud. It is their responsibility to do so. Otherwise they are supporting and aiding in state document forgery. Without looking that must be a crime in Hawaii.

So again, in simple terms. Not calling out fraud that is this well known, when it has basically ‘crossed your desk’ is criminal.

Onaka’s signature is on WH image and he has sent the letters. Clearly he has a right to access the entire record and its associated history.

Its obvious - if the document and the record were as posted at the WH someone would pay for lots of certified actual Hawaii certified copies to hand out. Instead there is a quick meeting with photocopies and a posting of an obvious fraudulent digital image.

The basic issue is ‘document forgery’. Is what the WH posted a real Hawaii record or not? If not - its forgery. And Onaka knows it (or should know it). He should call it out. Instead he dances through ‘in lue of’ procedures. In lue of because what the WH posted was a fraud.


89 posted on 12/31/2012 1:44:30 PM PST by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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