Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: bluecat6; butterdezillion; Red Steel
There are at least a couple of items that Hawaii DOH has not verified.

1)Whether there was an amended or altered BC issued for Obama if/when he was adopted. Even if they showed a bonafide copy of his original BC, it would not show a later amendment or that it was late, unless it was amended after one year. The Hawaiian verification did not verify the WH document completely it verified the information, thus if the original was marked ALTERED or LATE it could have been modified by someone before posting on the WH and removed the wording ALTERED or LATE and it might not conflict with the Hawaii verification of information. No one in the press has asked Obama if he was adopted or ever used a different name or citizenship.

2) The Original on file with HDOH has never been publicly verified or inspected by a court or document examiner.

Obama has vigorously refused to enter his BC into any court of law where it could be challenged for authenticity and an inspection likely made.

3) An empty file could have had a forged copy “inserted”. A copy of a forgery even though certified as a copy is still a copy of a forgery.

Referencing Jill Nagamine's comments to CCP "you still have a drivers license" makes one wonder if in fact Hawaii Knows the BC is forged but still a Birth Certificate 41:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80

Coupled with his Social Security number and Draft registration questions, a true inspection of all original documents is necessary and is called for.

219 posted on 07/21/2012 3:22:32 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies ]


To: rolling_stone

If the key events concerning Obama’s parents, relocations, likely adoptions, likely guardianship changes, etc. are anywhere near accurate (and I am not saying they are) then the records would have been altered numerous times between 1961 and 1983.

To avoid all this messyness the easy way to go to use a COLB that is only a basic computer print out with no original images. And that was the first attempt.

Only when Trump pushed for LFBC did it come out 3 years later.

The only way to unravel the facts would be to revese the cards and put them back in the deck in the correct order. An individual document (or card) is worthless at this point. If you have ever seen a dealer ‘back out’ a hand of blackjack at a table it is impressive. That is what needs to happen here for anything to make sense.


224 posted on 07/21/2012 3:48:36 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]

To: rolling_stone

They actually didn’t verify ANY birth facts. Verification of the facts is a certification that the birth event happened as described by the applicant for the verification. That’s what was required by the application form, and none of the items from that form were verified.

In addition to requesting verification of the birth FACTS on the application form, though, Ken Bennett also requested verification that some other items are actually on the birth record. Onaka did verify that those items are on the birth record, but that’s not the same thing as verifying that those facts are TRUE. If the birth facts were claimed on a legally non-valid record, Onaka would verify that the claims were on the record they have but would refuse to verify any of those actual birth facts as true. Which is exactly what Onaka did.

The statute (HRS 338-14.3) doesn’t give Onaka discretion to just ignore some facts that are requested to be verified. If the claimed fact is acknowledged by HI as probative/legally true, then he HAS to verify those facts. Onaka refused to verify any of those facts.

It also requires him to verify any other information regarding the vital event which the applicant requests to be verified. Bennett asked him to verify that the other claims from the online BC are on the record they have (stuff like BC#, date filed, etc) - and Onaka verified that they are. Bennett also asked Onaka to verify that Obama’s posted long-form is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”, and Onaka refused to verify that.

What it comes down to is that Onaka verified that the claims on the forged long-form are the same as what they have in the record but he CANNOT verify that any of those claims are true or that what Obama posted is a true and accurate representation of the original. The only legal reason for Onaka’s response - allowable by HRS 338-14.3 - is that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid.


233 posted on 07/21/2012 6:22:22 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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