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 ...
Hawaii statute allows law enforcement to request a totally fake BC to be created for somebody if they say that person is endangered without it. The forgeries put out by the HDOH itself, together with the fudging of multiple BC#’s, shows that something very fishy is going on. And the only instance in which a BC# other than the one originally given is allowed to be given is when there is this law enforcement fabrication.
If Obama’s BC is fabricated at the request of law enforcement it will say ANYTHING. It could have said he was born yesterday, if that’s what law enforcement told the HDOH to put on it. And as long as the original birth record was legally valid, everything would appear genuine. But Alvin Onaka is the person tasked with preventing his own HDOH Director from issuing a certified copy of a valid BC when there is only a non-valid one. The law enforcement exception is only allowable for a person who really WAS born in Hawaii according to the records, and all they’ve got for Obama is a non-valid record - a rumor. That’s why Onaka would not verify the truth of any birth fact for Obama.
You are totally clueless about prima facie evidence. And you apparently still haven’t read HRS 338-14.3 which clearly states that when submitted facts are verified it is certification that the event happened the way that the requestor stated. The statute REQUIRES the HDOH to do what you say can never be done: state the way that the event really happened.
If you understood what prima facie means, you would know that the legal status of the record gives ANYBODY the legal authority to presume that the claims on it are true. It is considered “self-authenticating”, in the language you Fogblowers use when you’re not trying to run away from Onaka’s disclosures.
On one hand you would have us able to say that Obama really was born in Hawaii because we’ve seen the manipulated White House image (which doesn’t even have the right security background on it) but on the other hand you wouldn’t allow the custodian of that record to say Obama’s Hawaii birth claim is legally-deficient according to Hawaii statute. Sheesh.
Either way, it still wouldn’t be Onaka VERIFYING that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. The only way for him to verify that is for him to say that he verifies it. And he never does that. What he verifies is the existence of a record. That’s the only sentence where he clearly says what he is verifying and all he says he verifies is the existence of a record. Diagram the sentence.
What do they do if they have a non-valid record? Verify the existence of that record, or not? What does the law require? What limits are placed on which records’ existence they must verify?
To verify WHAT facts of the vital event? Which of these facts was verified as true by Onaka: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Hussein Obama?
BTW, why did Janice Okubo tell me that this form doesn’t exist since they don’t issue letters of verification?
If the recipient accepts the certified Letter of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copy in his official capacity as Chief Elections Official of the state (which both the Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State did) then the Hawaii Registrar’s Letters of Verification served their intended purpose regardless of the actual wording.
Neither of the state officials who received certified Letters of Verification from Dr. Onaka challenged their veracity.
The certified Letters of Verification from Hawaii served their intended purpose.
“Hawaii sends Arizona Verification of Obama’s Birth:”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/22/20120522obama-birth-hawaii-arizona-verification.html?nclick_check=1
“I have no doubts now, Kobach says, of Obama’s birthplace:”
http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/17/2492998/kansas-expects-to-end-challenge.html
Bennett didn’t challenge it because he assumed the letter of verification was wrong, even though the legal presumption is supposed to be for regularity. That cool with you? An official asking a question and dismissing the under-oath response as wrong just because he wants to believe it’s wrong?
And Kobach didn’t challenge it because the objector withdrew the objection after having him and his family members’ lives threatened. That cool with you?
After receiving Onaka’s letters both Bennett and Kobach said that they were now satisfied that the questions they had about Obama’s birthplace had been answered and they cleared Obama for the ballot in states that Romney won by landslides. That’s the bottom line.
Nobody threatened Kobach’s or Bennett’s families and they were the ones who issued the statements to the press, not the person who filed the Kansas objection and then withdrew it.
Thanks for your comments, it makes for an interesting debate.
Yeah, the threats to the objector were not a warning shot to Kobach at all...
And Bennett saying in advance that he was going to put Obama’s name on the ballot as long as Hawaii sent him ANYTHING doesn’t speak to his integrity either...
I have a bridge to sell you and I’m sure you’ll buy it too.
Meanwhile, all you Obots ignore the questions I’ve asked. Specifically, is it legally OK for a public official to ask a question directly in a legal request and then assume that the answer given under oath was wrong even though there is no evidence of that and clarification was never asked? Can officials simply set aside the presumption of regularity whenever it is convenient for them? Are we governed by laws or by the wishful thinking of public officials?
I believe I know your answer but it would be good for you to hear it coming from your own mouth so you can realize your own lawlessness.
Post 61 - “Hawaii statute allows law enforcement to request a totally fake BC to be created for somebody if they say that person is endangered without it.”
In June 2007, who in law enforcement told the DOH to issue Senator Obama a new birth certificate?
Post 63 - “What he verifies is the existence of a record.”
The title of the form is “Verification of Birth” not “Verification of the Existence of a Birth Record”. And the first sentence is “Pursuant to a Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3 I verify the following:”
“1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
He verifies the DOH has a birth certificate showing that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. I don’t know how he could have made it any clearer.
That first sentence verifies the items on the request form.
The rest of the verification verifies the “other information” requested by SoS Bennett.
Post 65 - “Which of these facts was verified as true by Onaka: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Hussein Obama?”
All of them. Otherwise Dr. Onaka could not issue a verification of the existence of the birth certificate based on the items listed on the request form.
Post 63 - “BTW, why did Janice Okubo tell me that this form doesn’t exist since they don’t issue letters of verification?”
The verification says it is a form created or revised in 08/01/01. But what is the form? Not much more than Hawaiian DOH letterhead and the closing certification. I would guess that in the last 13 years they have issued 3 verifications. The reason is that it would be rare that an applicant wouldn’t just request his or her COLB.
The COLB Obama posted is a fake. It has a “raised seal” that doesn’t bend when the paper it was supposedly on bent.
And Gov Neil Abercrombie told a Star-Advertiser columnist in January of 2011 that his investigation was finding there was something “actually written down in the archives” - not something you’d expect him to say if there was a BC just like the White House image right there at that time in the bound volume where it belonged. He told his friend Mike Evans that he had been to the hospitals and could find no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii - not something you would expect if the labor room log had Dunham’s name right there would it would be expected to be.
IOW, the BC with the Kapiolani claim was not in existence in January of 2011. It didn’t come into existence until they got rid of HDOH Director Neal Palafox a week after Evans told the world what Abercrombie had told him, and got Fuddy in there, who was willing to give in to law enforcement’s exploitation of the John Roll assassination in Tucson, to say that these “crazy birthers” might kill Obama if there wasn’t a BC that pretended Obama’s claims were legally-substantiated.
That form is supposed to be for verifying a birth. The certifying statement is the way it is because there are supposed to be facts verified. Unfortunately for Obama, Onaka gave no sentence where he says he verifies the truth of ANY birth fact for Obama. Any birth facts that were verified were verified through the use of the original record - but there weren’t any that were verified.
“indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, HI” is a clause that modifies the noun “certificate”. The certificate indicates. Even a non-valid certificate “indicates”. What Onaka is required - by statute - to do is to issue his own verification that they have a BC, and issue his own verification that such-and-so claims are true. All he ever says HE verifies as true is that they have a birth record. Onaka is fully capable of using complete sentences which state exactly what he is verifying about something. He did it in the first and last sentences of Bennett’s LOV and did it all the way through on Kobach and MDEC’s requests which asked for nothing that means anything legally. He didn’t do that on the itemized part of Bennett’s request. He treated Bennett’s additional requests totally different than he treated the claims on the application form. Why did he do that? If the verification itself is verification of teh truth of EVERYTHING SUBMITTED, then why did he list any of the items? Those were all on the White House image also. If his way of verifying Aug 4, 1961, for instance, was simply by issuing any verification at all, then why didn’t he verify all those other items the same way? Why did he treat it differently?
And you folks keep ignoring the critical questions I’ve asked. Bennett admitted that Onaka had not verified Aug 4, 1961 but assumed that it was just a mistake. Is that a legally acceptable way to do things - to ask a question point-blank and then when the answer comes under oath, simply assume that the answer was a mistake? Bennett is NOT agreeing with what you’ve said about how a LOV works. He has admitted that Onaka has to mention a fact in order to verify it. He just thinks Onaka “overlooked” six out of six items submitted on the application form... Is that an acceptable standard? We can just legally assume that Onaka was 100% inaccurate on the items from the application form?
And you’re totally blowing off what Okubo actually told me. She didn’t say that nobody ever asks for a letter of verification. She said they won’t issue them any more. She said they have no form for a letter of verification, when they’ve had one since 2001 if that form is genuine. Of course, she also told me that they have no statements of what is to be included on a standard copy of a birth certificate, which seems odd if there was actually a 2001 memo saying they would only issue the abbreviated BC (but then, the properties on that “memo” show that it was created the day that Obama released his forged long-form...)
As always, it is a total waste of time discussing with you because you ignore the hard questions and the evidence I present and just keep giving the same boilerplate responses. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
I’ve wasted too much time on you already. Good-bye.
My guess is that Letters of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copies are issued to persons who don’t qualify under HRS 338-18 for receiving a copy of the birth certificate but whose official position (such as a state Secretary of State) allows them to demonstrate a “direct and tangible interest” in receiving such a letter. Hawaii statutes give the Director of Health discretion in determining who can receive a Letter of Verification.
Janice Okubo was the Communications Director for the Department of Health. She was not directly connected to the Registrar of Vital Statistics’ office and she may not have been familiar with every statute related to the release of vital statistics.
The statute is explicit. It requires verification of facts "AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT." It IS there. Read the statute.
a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
Now, it doesn't say that it has to be a fact contained in the document but information that the applicant PROVIDES to be verified. The AZ SOS, for example, provided the DOH's own standard record-request form and ASKED for that information to be verified. Hawaii did NOT verify that information. Second, it would be logical that an applicant would ask if a record is a true copy, because that statement is part of the signature block that the registrar puts on legitimate certified copies of records. And here's the next part of the statute that says "as stated by the applicant."
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.
There's a very simple reason to verify the information as stated by the applicant. It eliminates any possible confusion.
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.
Nonsense. The signature block that the registrar puts on a certified document states under signature that such a copy is a TRUE copy. You're making a ridiculous excuse, especially when there's a paper trail claiming that Hawaii provided the document that is alleged to be the source of the WH LFBC.
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.
Stop acting like a drama queen. Hawaii's own statute says "as stated by the applicant." It has nothing to do with being magic words. And second, the FRE requires the custodian of the record to verify a copy of record is a correct copy.
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.
Sorry, but you're making an assumption that isn't supported. And in Kansas, the DOH's failure to say the LFBC was a correct copy was a big part of the reason the SOS requested another copy and asked if it was identical.
"The information is identical" would carry the same import.
No, the question isn't whether the information is identical, but whether the entire COPY is identical. There's a big difference.
Actually, this isn't entirely true. If a birth occurred in transit or en route for example, the hospital could be listed as the location where the child was first examined. The certificate is supposed to contain a statement that the child was born en route, such as on a ship or on a plane, and nothing in the "letters of verification" precludes this from being possible.
Bennett made a decision without reading the letter of verifcation. Kobach's statement was made in front of a hostile crowd.
Yes, a completely ambiguous statement talking about an unspecified vital record to verify unstated facts of an unstated vital event.
State statutes and state administrative regulations often give elected and appointed government officials considerable freedom and latitude to act in accordance with their own judgement.
However the actions of a public official can be challenged in court. There have been eleven lawsuits challenging the actions of Hawaii officials concerning the birth records of Barack Obama. The courts have upheld the judgements and rulings of Hawaii governmental officials in every instance.
As for Secretary of State Bennett in Arizona, the fact that an Arizona court had already ruled two months earlier that Obama was a natural born citizen BEFORE Bennett received his Letter of a Verification from Hawaii probably influenced his attitude toward this issue considerably. Bennett checked into Obama’s birth vital record at the request of constituents from the city of Surprise, Arizona’s Tea Party chapter.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
“.....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.)...”
OK, an observation that applies to folks born in Hawaii that are applying or renewing their security clearances for defense/federal employment.
One of the requirements for this is submitting a certified copy of their birth cert with a RAISED SEAL on it.
The raised seal means its authentic; older certified copies with squashed seals (from being folded, etc) are not accepted, thats why they ask for fresh certified raised-sealed ones to be sent in with the renewal forms.
Question is, have any people born in hawaii ran into trouble getting certified copies of their birth certs with the proper raised seals on them?
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.