Posted on 09/22/2013 1:06:51 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.
This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I’m going to give you a little more background also, so you realize there is more to my analysis. Before any of the SOS’s made requests for letters of verification I made a legal request from Janice Okubo for the forms that were used for fulfilling requests for verification. She told me that there weren’t any records responsive to my request because they don’t issue verifications any more; if somebody asks for a verification the HDOH just sends a COLB. Which is a bunch of hogwash because there are people who qualify for a verification who don’t qualify for a certified copy of a COLB. (Of course, according to the Administrative Rules in effect right now, ANYBODY qualifies to receive a NON-CERTIFIED copy of a COLB, but they don’t follow that, any more than they follow the rule allowing a person to get photocopies of even the confidential medical portion of their BC on request...)
So HDOH communications director Okubo lied to me in a legal response, trying to make me believe that they don’t issue letters of verification. Why?
A colleague’s communication with someone in authority at the vital records office in Hawaii filled in the blanks as to why Okubo lied to me: this worker said that a verification request that met all the legal requirements was being sent to the AG’s office so they could come up with an excuse to not issue a verification (of birth facts for somebody totally unrelated to the Obama issue) because if they issued ANY letters of verification it would cause people to wonder why THEY WILL NEVER ISSUE A VERIFICATION FOR OBAMA. This worker basically said flat-out that they cannot issue a verification for Obama’s birth facts, and the powers-that-be are lying and obfuscating in order to hide that fact. (Compare this with the runaround Bennett received just trying to get a verification, and all the hoops Deputy AG Nagamine was trying to get him to jump through so they wouldn’t have to issue anything. And when push came to shove, Onaka’s name stamp on the Bennett verification had someone else’s initials behind it and Bennett wouldn’t let them use his seal. Onaka distanced himself from this verification in every way possible. As it is, the verifications have the sort-of signature of Onaka but the RAISED seal of Fuddy which according to statute is only supposed to be used next to FUDDY’S signature. Everything about these verifications is fishy, leaving legal loopholes in case it is ever argued in court that Onaka actually DID verify Obama’s birth facts.)
Sort of like they illegally hid the Administrative Rules to hide the fact that anybody can get a non-certified COLB copy. Or why they CREATED the “2001 memo” (saying they would only issue short-form BC’s) on the DAY THAT OBAMA RELEASED HIS FORGED LONG-FORM. Or like they put a Territory of Hawaii heading on a certified “photocopy” of a STATE OF HAWAII death certificate for Virginia Sunahara. Or the way they altered the 1960-64 birth index so that it includes names from non-valid birth records. Or dozens of other illegal things the HDOH has done.
Just wanted you to know some of the background. None of this analysis is happening in a vacuum; there is a long history that informs my analysis, as well as the actual statutes and the request Bennett actually submitted, which was censored from the news reports.
Should have been “ And when push came to shove, Onaka’s name stamp on the Bennett verification had someone else’s initials behind it and ONAKA wouldn’t let them use his seal.”
Placemark.
Foreign students with a student visa attending a U.S. School are not required to register with Selective Service. If the Foreign Student became eligible to naturalize as a U.S. Citizen, the Foreign Student would have to register with Selective Service or obtain a waiver for not registering to become a U.S. Citizen. A Certificate of Naturalization would not be issued to foreigner who did not register with Selective Service or obtain a waiver from registration.
As a person born in 1961, if Obama did not register with Selective Service in 1980, then voters would have questioned his eligibility. Consequently, there is motive to forge a registration card. If Obama waited until he was 21 years old to register, then voters may demand a full explanation as to why he waited. If Obama obtained a waiver from registration, then voter may have question why he obtained a waiver. If it is established Obama did not register because he was a foreigner attending a U.S. School on a student visa in 1980, then his eligibility to be on the Alabama ballot would have been jeopardized.
You are confusing a fact witness (who testifies to the truth of a matter based on firsthand knowledge) with certification by a custodian of records. The latter obviously does not have information about the truth of the data contained in records that date back 50, 75 years, etc. But the custodian can and does verify what those records indicate about particular matters. That is what Dr. Onaka has done.
Sec. 338-14.3 speaks of "verification of the existence of a certficate." It doesn't purport to require the custodian to add language about "validity." I have no idea where you are getting this notion that Onaka was supposed to make a statement about validity. If a document in contained in the vital records, absent something to suggest to the custodian the document's bona fides are to be questioned, his task is to state what those records indicate. Onaka did that.
And when you look at Bennett’s entire request - including the actual APPLICATION FORM - you realize that the BC they have CAN’T be valid because if it was, Onaka would have had to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, WAS born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, since those are the facts requested to be verified
If the record weren't viewed as authentic or accurate, then Onaka couldn't have stated:
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
But state that he did. And he expressly verified the 10 items listed in SOS Bennet's letter. Again, how could Onaka verify these items if he didn't have a "valid" vital record stating such?
Your question seems to focus on information on the application form where Bennett wrote in"verification in lieu of certified copy." The obvious problem here is that Bennett wrote in items of information such as his name (Ken Bennett), his address, his phone number, his official status allowing him to make the request, etc. So when Bennett purports to request verification of "items in the attached form" are you suggesting Onaka was supposed to verify all items Bennett wrote on that form? That makes no sense.
Clearly, that form is designed to ask for information sufficient to identify the certificate for which a copy is requested. And Onaka verified the existence of a certificate. As to the information items you note, those were all contained on the White House LFBC, and Onaka verified that the information matched Hawaii's records.
So I fail to see any information requested by Bennett that wasn't effectively verified.
Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY fact submitted on the application form.
He verified such when he verified the information on the WH LFBC matched Hawaii's records.
Nor would he verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”
Since the White House image came from a copy printed onto security paper, and since the originals aren't on security paper, obviously Onaka couldn't give a verification as to "accurate image." The images necessarily are different.
But Onaka could and did verify as to the accuracy of the INFORMATION contained on the WH copy.
The INFORMATION on the White House image “matches” but is not identical.
Well, let's see if you have a point here.
Main Entry: identical
***
Definition: alike, equal
Synonyms: Xerox, carbon copy, corresponding, . . . double, duplicate, equivalent, exact, identic, indistinguishable, interchangeable, . . .look-alike, matching, . . . Source
So Kansas asks if they are "identical." Onaka says they "match." Given that "identical" and "matching" are synonymous terms Onaka verified the request.
Do you want the AL Supreme Court to say that’s a fine way of doing legal business here in the USA?
Whether imposing the duty on the Ala. SOS to undertake some sort of investigative process or hold some sort of administrative hearing is a good idea or not is a legislative, policy question. It's just not Alabama law as it existed at the time of the 2012 election. The SCOAL is not going to judicially impose that duty. Besides, Obama didn't win any electoral votes in AL. The appeal is pointless and moot.
Klayman will lose.
The problem is that the disclosure law in Hawaii says that registrar has to verify the facts “as stated by the applicant.” This means he can’t substitute other terms on an assumption some words are synonymous with others. In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact. And this is a fact that the state registrar has the authority to verify. It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record. There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy. Hawaii did NOT do this. They also failed to verify several specific facts contained on their own standard request form. The Kansas Secretary of State requested his own letter because the language in the Arizona and Mississippi letters were not compelling. He asked specifically if the copy was identical. Under the law in Hawaii, the registrar is supposed to verify that fact as stated by the applicant, not by using synonymous language or with a partial verification of facts. Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical. It may suggest that it might be identical, but it is NOT a verification that complies with the law “as stated by the applicant.”
You can offer the long recitation of many tangetial matters. I will again merely point out that when Hawaii states --
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
-- a long recitation that tries to pass off the conclusion that "Dr. Onaka refused to verify any birth facts" looks contrived (to state it most kindly). At a minimum, it can safely be said that he verfied the fact the Hawaii vital records reflect BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Right?
A colleague’s communication with someone in authority at the vital records office in Hawaii . . .
Here we have a double-hearsay statement that traces back to an anonymous source. Yeah, that's reliable.
this worker said . . . if they issued ANY letters of verification it would cause people to wonder why THEY WILL NEVER ISSUE A VERIFICATION FOR OBAMA.
That anonymous worker, supposing such person actually exists, has obviously been proven wrong in his/her prediction. Right?
[the] worker basically said flat-out that they cannot issue a verification for Obama’s birth facts,
And that worker was flat-out proven wrong when Dr. Onaka point-blank verified Obama's Hawaiian birth.
Onaka distanced himself from this verification in every way possible.
Like by allowing the verfication (plus two others) as to Obama's Hawaiian birth to issue under his name on his office letterhead? If that is "distancing" onseself, then what, pray tell, would "getting close" mean to you?
None of this analysis is happening in a vacuum; there is a long history that informs my analysis, as well as the actual statutes and the request Bennett actually submitted[.]
Dr. Onaka's verification of Obama's Hawaiian birth was sufficient for Bennett to conclude Obama was properly on the state ballot. That fact further informs my analysis, and given the Full, Faith & Credit clause of our Constitution, Bennett's decision was as expected.
Insofar as the SCOAL takes notice of any of this, it is but one more reason why Klayman will lose.
“1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Does the word indicating mean the same as proving or certifying?
The statute requires verification of facts. The statute does not bind the DOH Director to particular adjective modifiers the requester may use to describe those facts. You're reading into the statute something that isn't there.
In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact.
As I noted above, given the WH LFBC was produced from a copy printed onto security paper, it would not be correct to say it is a "true copy" (or "identical" to) an original that is on plain or other form of paper. There would be differences in appearance.
But the INFORMATION contained on the WH LFBC could be (and was) verified as accurate notwithstanding differences in appearance.
It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record.
When an actual document is requested by for official purposes, my understanding is that Hawaii issues the COLB. The attestation on Obama's states it is "a true copy of abstract of the record on file." I've not heard of an instance where Hawaii has issued a certified copy of the full LFBC.
There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy.
What? The custodian doesn't have to say the magic words "true and accurate representation" or "is identical to?" Words of like import (i.e., synonyms) are still legally sufficient under the F.R.E.? Go figure. Here I thought you were trying to claim otherwise.
Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical.
The actual wording used was "the information in the copy . . . matches the original record in our files." Onaka doesn't just say "some" information matches. He says "the information" -- which signifies that all information on the copy matches the original. "The information is identical" would carry the same import.
Trying to claim there's some meaningful semantic distinction between "matches" and "is identical" is silly.
transitive verb *ˈin-də-ˌkāt *
: to show (something) : to show that (something) exists or is true
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indicate
I suppose Dr. Onaka could just as easily have said,
“1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health showing that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
But he chose to use the synonym "indicating" instead.
Whether something is "proved" is viewed from the perspective of the person to be persuaded or making determination. In the case of AZ SOS Bennett the fact of Obama's HI birth was proved sufficient for his duties and purposes. And for me, as I suspect for most people, the statement " A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii" is about as direct and clear an attestation of Hawaiian birth as can reasonably be made. Thaf some can purport to read that statement and assert the Director didn't affirm a birth in Hawaii is mind-boggling.
This is called by Hawaii a "verification in lieu of a certified copy." If someone receives a copy, they have to read it to determine what that record "indicates." With the verification, since no record is sent, the DOH Director reviews the record and verifies facts indicated on that record.
The Director doesn't assert the record proves or certifies a fact. The Director verifies the existence of the record and the information contained on that record. It's up to the reader/recipient to determine what significance to impart to that information.
cer·ti·fy transitive verb \ˈsər-tə-ˌfī\:
to say officially that something is true, correct, or genuine
to say officially that something or someone has met certain standards or requirements
Synonyms:
attest, authenticate, avouch, testify (to), vouch (for), witness
That’s why Dr. Onaka said,
“I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”
Both “indicating” and “certify” are used on the Hawaii Registrar’s Letter of Verification.
One more time: “I CERTIFY that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”—Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
State Registrar
(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.
The requester having asked for verification of BHO,II's birth at Honolulu, Hawaii, verification of that by the Director is certification that the facts of the event are as stated.
It would be difficult for Dr. Onaka or any state registrar to certify that the facts on any birth certificate are true unless he or she was present at the time of the event. This is certainly true for the demographic information supplied by the parents (ages, birthplaces, occupations even the names of the father). But the significant information on a birth certificate (DOB, hour, location, hospital and doctor names) would be presumed to be true since that information is supplied directly by the hospital at the time of the event.
Dr. Onaka specifically verified that “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” is listed on the original birth record as the hospital or institution. There is no logical scenario that would allow a parent, grandparent, or other person to register a birth as having occurred at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
Yes, because he holds the office regardless of his validity, and he was put in the here by the electoral College. According to Levin, the only way to remove a president (and he is president, regardless of legal requirements) is impeachment. The high crime could be (this is me speaking, not Levin) swearing a false oath at some point about his eligibility.
On August 12, 2008 the Internet blog network and news portal “Pajamas Media” announced that they had received an e-mail confirmation from the Selective Service System that Barack Obama had, in fact, registered for the draft as required by law:
Mr. Owens,
Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.
His registration number is 61-1125539-1.
Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist
Selective Service System
Do you know the difference between prima facie evidence and non-prima facie? You’re acting like you don’t know the difference. When you look at the HI statutes, they are required to keep birth records that are prima facie and records that are NOT prima facie. Specifically, BC’s that are late and/or have major administrative amendments (as defined in great detail in the Administrative Rules) are NOT prima facie.
The difference is a critical one because if the record is prima facie the claims on it are legally presumed true. The legal burden is on whoever wants to say they are not true. For non-prima facie records the opposite is true. Because the document itself is suspect it is legally considered a rumor. For that record to have ANY evidentiary value for legal purposes those claims themselves have to be investigated and proven using other sources, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The burden of proof falls to the person who says that the claims on the record are true.
When Onaka gets an application for a request for a letter of verification, HRS 338-14.3 says he must verify the existence of a record AND anything else (about the vital event) that is submitted for verification, with the stipulation that he can only verify what can be certified as true - which for evidentiary purposes means whatever is legally presumed to be true.
So from the application form - which is the standard form - there are two things that have to be verified:
1. the existence of the record. Onaka verified this. He would have to verify this even if the record they have is a scrap of toilet paper with a note jotted on it. That scrap of TP could “indicate” a Honolulu birth, in which case Onaka could say that - as he did. All that is being verified is that they have a record for a person with more specific details than just a name that can be seen on the birth index list (for instance, a record for so-and-so who was born to so-and-so at such-and-such time). Verifying the existence of the record is a requirement regardless of the legal status of that record so this part of the verification says nothing about what is presumed to be true. That part is reserved for #2
2. Anything else that is submitted for verification, with the stipulation that they cannot verify anything unless it is submitted for verification by the requestor, and they can only verify those things if they are presumed to be true (are claimed on a prima facie record). #1 covers whether they’ve got a BC that claims what is submitted on the application. #2 covers what submitted facts are TRUE. This part would also cover any other requests such as the additional requests made by Bennett, Kobach, and MDEC.
Those requests could be for what is true, or could be for what is claimed on a record. In Bennett’s case, he said, “In addition to the items on the attached application, please verify FROM THE BIRTH RECORD....” He is asking for each item from the application form to be verified specifically, and he is asking for other items to be verified “from the birth record”. Onaka could take that 2 ways. If he interprets it as a request for the true facts on the application AND on the additional items submitted, then he would have to specifically verify every item that was submitted from the application form and from the additional list - if the record was valid. He doesn’t do that. He mentioned ONE thing from the application. And he only did that in #1, verifying the existence of a record which claims that. He never goes on to say that any of those submitted facts are TRUE.
Look at it again:
““[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
He is only verifying the existence of the record claiming a Honolulu birth. He does not verify that Obama WAS born in Honolulu.
From there he goes on to the process of verifying the additional information that was submitted. He separates this from part #1 by listing Obama’s name all over again, showing this is a new section.
Because Onaka listed Bennett’s addtional items “from the birth record” but didn’t list the items from the application form, he clearly interpreted those requests to mean 2 different things. The application form has to be interpreted as a request for verification of the TRUTH of the claims, since the verification of the existence of the record already showed that those are the claims on the record. Where Onaka HAD to understand the request being for verification of the truth of the claims he remained silent. He would not verify the truth of the claims.
He blows right past everything on the application form. Bennett knew Onaka didn’t verify the birth date; it’s not listed on there anywhere. Nor are his parents, etc. Bennett assumed that Onaka made a mistake, but the statute gives only one lawful reason for all 6 of the requested items from the application form to not be verified: if they cannot be certified as true. Nowhere did Onaka verify how the birth actually happened.
All other portions could be interpreted as requests to see what was “from the birth record” - that is, what is claimed on the birth record, without regard for the truth of the claims. And Onaka verifies that those claims are on the record he has. When verifying the dates of signatures and filing he does not use the format submitted by Bennett; he uses the exact way that the dates appear on the record, as if he is photocopying them.
However, he hits a snag when Bennett asks him to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. This is legal language for affirming the genuineness of the copy. In the Sunahara trial Deputy AG Jill Nagamine submitted the HDOH’s Administrative Rules with a certifying statement that the copy was a “true and correct copy of the original record on file”. This is standard language. In that case, the judge wouldn’t accept Nagamine’s submittal because even though her statement had the correct language, Nagamine is not the custodian of the record so she couldn’t certify it. The specific language matters. “True and accurate representation” means that the image accurately reflects what is in the actual record. He doesn’t verify that.
But he does something that the law does not allow him to do: he verifies something else - specifically, that the “information contained in the White House image MATCHES” the information contained in the record.
What does “matches” mean, legally? And what does “information” mean? Either of those words could mean anything so in effect they mean nothing. When asked point-blank by KS SOS Kobach whether the information (not the image, but the INFORMATION) is IDENTICAL, Onaka would not verify that.
If “information” means pixels, as some have claimed, and he couldn’t verify that the pixels were identical, then how could he claim that the pixels “matched”? If “information” doesn’t mean pixels but instead means the substance of the claim (as, for instance, 8-4-61 is the same CONTENT as Aug 4, 1961, and Onaka had no problem verifying Kobach’s submitted dates as being on the record even though their presentation was not identical - because the SUBSTANCE was identical), then why wouldn’t Onaka verify that the information/substance was “identical”?
I note that the eligibility issue is the only issue you have posted on here at Free Republic. You’re obviously interested in this. Did you read Klayman’s letter? What you’re voicing here is the standard boilerplate from Fogbow, not the language of a legal expert. A legal expert would know the difference between prima facie and not prima facie and would realize that the status makes all the difference as to whether a custodian of the record can certify the facts as TRUE. He doesn’t have to be an eyewitness if he has a prima facie record which makes the claims. Otherwise, nobody could ever certify anything. Were Antonio Villagairosa, Alice Travis Germond, and Nancy Pelosi present at Obama’s birth? OF course not. A lot of people have made assertions about Obama’s birth who could not have been a legal witness to it - including Obama himself. Legally speaking, what matters is whether there is a credible evidence trail by those who were there. A birth record is only invalidated if there are SERIOUS issues with the credibility of the evidence submitted. The State of Hawaii does not allow Onaka to certify that the claims made on Obama’s birth record are legally credible. HI statute says that a judicial or administrative official or body has to sort out those claims, which would be according to the FEderal Rules of Evidence. As it stands now, what we have is legally considered a rumor - which is very, very strange if Obama was indeed born at Kapiolani Hospital.
Onaka never verified the truth of any fact about Obama’s birth. Show me any place where Onaka clearly and specifically says HE VERIFIES that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama.
Bennett knew that Aug 4, 1961 at the very least was never verified. He assumed it was a mistake. I asked you whether that is an OK way to do legal business here in the USA. You wouldn’t answer so I’ll ask again. When a witness (to whether the claim is made on a valid record) gives an answer under oath, is it legally acceptable for a public official to assume they meant something else, without any evidence or clarification?
I’ll add this: You speak and think like a Fogblower. You blew off Janice Okubo’s legal responses to me and assumed that I made up stories. Those who know me can tell you that I don’t make up stories. Just as the worker stated to my colleague, Hawaii has never issued a verification of Obama’s birth facts. They issued a verification of the existence of a birth record, and they certified it in a way that violated Hawaii statute. They used a form that Janice Okubo, in a legal/formal communication, told me doesn’t exist. No problem, huh?
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.