Posted on 12/30/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by wrastu
Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.
(Excerpt) Read more at theobamahustle.wordpress.com ...
I disagree.
The US govenment is actively destroying our economy, laws and culture under the leadership of this traitor supported by a sycophant press and the greedy, jealous, lazy, low IQ and unproducing citizenry.
All issues should be on the table and pursued aggressively. Picking and choosing the topics acceptable to the media got us where we are now.
Thank you to all of you brilliant, fearless, curious and relentless researchers.
It's been crap for a good long while now. I'll use a specific example from my home-state and (1) a specific state statute, and (2) a specific rule, both of which illustrate the underlying problems.
New Mexico State Constitution
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
(1)
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.As you can see, the definitions in NMSA 30-7-2.4 make even on-campus housing a restricted place, thereby "abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense."
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) "university premises" means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Some people argue that this is acceptable because we restrict guns in courtrooms, this is addressed in (2) but like NMSA 30-7-2.4 is illegitimate under the State Constitution as the prosecution of any 'violation' must needs be under the law and the State Constitution is clear that no law should be used for that effect... it literally cuts out the rug from the lawfare tactic (warfare via courts, using other laws to get something done indirectly) and makes using catch-all 'crimes' like disturbing the peace (ex: because he was open carrying) more difficult to abuse.
Another argument raised is 'private property', i.e.: that the university is private property and the university has the ability to set whatever rules it wishes. This is a non-issue to this example: the Constitution forbids a law from abridging the right and the statute ['law'] I have produced abridges the right... whether the property is private, or public, is immaterial. (But for an interesting counter to the argument raised, Art II, Sec 4 specifically cites the right of defending oneself as inalienable, and therefore not "waivable".)
(2)
When I go by the courthouses in my old hometown I would see posted there prohibitions on weapons... even the municipal and county courthouses, which directly conflict with "no municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms." You might suppose this could be covered by a state statute, but no such statute exists, and if one did it would be invalid by the same operation that the above invalidates the stature concerning guns on university campuses. Where then do the courts get their 'power' to post such things? The answer, I found, was in "Court Rules" and the following is an example taken from "Rules of the District Court of the Third Judicial District" in Section I ("General Matters — General Powers & Duties of the Court").
LR3-113. Court security.Notice now that the jurors, who have not even been accused of a crime, are not only stripped of their weapons by section A, but that only the prisoner is guaranteed protection (B.1).
A. Weapons. All deadly weapons, including knives and objects which could be used to inflict bodily harm, except those carried by court personnel and authorized court security officers, are prohibited in the judicial complex and any other related judicial office. Weapons which are intended for use as trial or hearing exhibits are not subject to this rule. Law enforcement officers who are witnesses shall not carry weapons in the courtroom and shall comply with all applicable sections of the security manual.
B. Prisoner procedures.
(1) The law enforcement agency having custody of any prisoner appearing for a court proceeding shall be responsible for keeping the prisoner secure while the prisoner is at the judicial complex. That agency shall be responsible for searching the prisoner and keeping the prisoner handcuffed or manacled. Prisoners are to be taken to the holding facility in the judicial complex immediately upon arrival, and shall be kept separate from court personnel and members of the public.
(2) No attorney shall have the authority to authorize a prisoner to be released from handcuffs or manacles. Law enforcement officers having custody of a prisoner may remove handcuffs or manacles so a prisoner may sign documents or perform other functions necessary for the court proceeding, and as otherwise ordered by the court.
(3) Prisoners shall not be allowed to mingle with family members or other persons, except at the discretion of the court or law enforcement agency having custody of the prisoner.
C. Other precautions.
(1) Metal detectors and physical searches may be used in any case upon court order.
(2) Any law enforcement officer, court employee or attorney who believes that an altercation or violent situation may occur at a court proceeding should promptly notify the court. The court may implement appropriate security measures on such occasions.
(3) During court proceedings where a party is in custody, security personnel must remain in the courtroom near the prisoner during the entire proceeding.
Nothing?
He serves as long as he does TPTB's bidding.
It's Obama, remember? His ego is so great that he will inevitably go rogue and stop following orders.
He also fancies himself as a Modern Lincoln.
He gets too far off the reservation, and TPTB will complete the comparison, and blame us.
Americas Historic First Martyred Black President and Ascended God™...
Tha lament of the Birthers:
Before the primaries we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually his party's candidate.
Before the main election we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually the president elect.
Before the electoral college vote they we the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been elected until the electoral college said so.
Before the congress accepted the electoral college vote we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been approved until the congress accepted the electoral college vote.
Before was sworn in we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually violated the constitution until he became president.
Now that he is in the White House, they say it's too late, you should have said something sooner!
This man is next in line to become Ambassador to Libya, whether he wants to or not.
“This birth certificate stuff just makes us look stupid. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, but where he was born isn’t one of them.”
I disagree. First of all, “where he was born” is a fundamental and constitutional REASON TO OPPOSE HIM, if he was NOT born in the USA, knew he is ineligible, and nevertheless ran for and TOOK office.
Constitutional eligibility requirements matter in the extreme. The reasons are self evident.
That being said, the “birth certificate stuff” is far more than it seems. It’s symbolic. Iconic. It goes to the heart of the problem: WHO IS HE?
Why does he LIE about EVERYTHING concerning his background? He is driven to repeat these proven lies, most recently at a war hero’s funeral.
He cannot be and will not be transparent about the most fundamental document that most people willingly present when they apply for school, a job, etc. You can’t even fly on an airplane these days without the government making sure of who you are. Who is he? We don’t know.
There’s a reason he hides the records. It’s most likely because he’s NOT who he says he is. It’s far beyond where he was born. He may have been born in Hawaii, but to date there’s NO EVIDENCE to prove that. What is he hiding?
It’s not “stupid” for us to ask for proof of who he is and, especially, for proof that he’s constitutionally eligible for the job. Yes, by now there are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, but what’s “stupid” is to assume that simply because one asks for this man to PROVE his eligibility for the job, then that’s the same as “opposing” him. He’s done plenty over the past four years that deserves opposition, but asking the man to prove he’s who and what he claims to be is not opposition. It’s simple common sense.
What employer hires a person who deliberately obfuscates his identity? It’s a measure of his character. What is it in Obama’s character that drives him to lie about his provenance?
There is a new verification from Dr.Onaka that was issued to Kansas SoS Kobach on September 14th.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106576604/2012-09-14-KS-SoS-Kobach-Letter-to-Onaka-and-Response
Both SoS Bennett and SoS Kobach accepted the verifications as proof of Hawaiian birth, even after they received the letter from Klayman.
In fact, SoS Kobach said, “… the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.”
http://www.ksnt.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3759150
Besides being the SoS of Kansas, Kris Kobach is also chief counsel for Immigration Law Reform Institute (he helped write Arizona’s and Alabama’s immigration laws) and a Constitutional law professor at University of Missouri at Kansas City. Here is his defense of the Arizona law in a New York Times editorial,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?_r=0
He apparently doesn’t buy the birth certificate is legally non-valid argument.
Thank you for the ping, Tough Guy.
I think I saw this story in the last week or so already. It will be great if something comes of it. Big IF.
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?
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?
So tell me why Onaka supposedly verified Honolulu as the birth city but didn’t verify Oahu as the birth island.
OMG, you're right! And for that matter, he neglected to specify Earth as the birth planet!!!!!! This conspiracy goes farther than we dare imagine!!1!!!one!!!!
thanks....
I remember seeing Kobach’s letter but I don’t remember seeing Dr. Onaka’s response.
The questions stunk.
Kobach asked Onaka to verify that the information contained in the White House image “is identical to” the information in the original record. Onaka wouldn’t verify that. Kobach decided to overlook that, in spite of the fact that Onaka certified (swore) that his verification was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3, which requires him to verify everything submitted to him that he CAN verify.
On what basis did Kobach abandon the legal principle of “presumption of regularity”? What evidence does he have, that Onaka’s verification was NOT in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 as Onaka swore?
If Kobach was going to blow off what Onaka actually said and presume that the information was identical and all was hunky dory, even when Onaka verified the opposite, why did Kobach even ask for a verification? He totally ignored what Onaka verified, given that Onaka said it was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3.
Nice evasion. The law says he has to verify whatever is submitted, if he can. Oahu was submitted as the birth island. If the birth city was Honolulu, then the birth island would have to be Oahu, correct?
So why didn’t he verify Oahu as required by law?
Maybe SoS Kobach recognizes that in order for the information to match, it has to be identical. Look again at his statement “… the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.”
If Kobach doesn’t buy your argument what makes you believe that members of Congress will? If they call SoS Kobach won’t he tell them your theory doesn’t work?
For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. - Luke 12:2
No, because I don't follow how you jumped to the conclusion that there's a problem with the record. As far as I can tell, it went like this:
1. Bennett asked for "a verification in lieu of a certified copy" of Obama's birth record--specifically, a verification "from the record of birth" of a list of items, plus a verification that the COLB is a "true and accurate representation of the original record."
2. Onaka replied "I verify the following," referring to Bennett's list of items, plus "I verify that the information [in the COLB] matches the original record in our files."
Your argument--or Klayman's, anyway--seems to be that verifying that something "matches the original record" isn't the same as verifying that it's a "true and accurate representation." And that all Onaka did was verify that the information matched, not that the information was accurate.
If I'm right in my understanding of your argument, what I'm wondering is how Onaka could verify that the information was accurate, if verifying that it matched the original record isn't good enough.
The whole request and response violated the HDOH’s policies. The HDOH website says that to request a verification you have to fill out an actual application, just like you have to do to request a certified copy of a birth certificate. That’s why the certifying statement at the bottom of the actual letter of verification says that the original record was used to certify the birth facts; you’re not supposed to be able to GET a verification of ANYTHING without submitting the birth facts for the record you’re asking about. I don’t have time to fetch it right now, but Okubo explained in a 2005(?) article why that is - to make sure the requestor and HDOH are talking about the same person.
The only one who actually obeyed the HDOH’s stated rules was Bennett.
And the same certifying statement was on all the verifications, even though Bennett asked for birth facts to be verified and none were, and neither Kobach nor MDEC even asked for any birth facts to be verified OR even provided enough information for the HDOH to be able to verify anything, according to the HDOH’s stated policy, posted on their website. Neither MDEC nor Kobach asked for an exception to the requirement that they submit an actual application, either, (though Kobach asked for expedited service), so it wasn’t that an exception was requested and granted.
The statement saying that the original file was used to verify the birth facts does NOT mean that any birth facts actually were verified on the verification, since none were verified on either the MDEC or Kobach verifications and they still had that certifying statement.
So that certifying statement does not mean that Onaka was verifying the truth of any of the FACTS that were listed on the Bennett verification; he could well have been verifying that those facts are simply “items from the birth certificate”, as Bennett asked. And given that Onaka revealed that the BC is non-valid, that HAS to be what Onaka was verifying on those items: that they are what is claimed on the (legally non-valid) record.
If “matches” means the same thing as identical, then Onaka BY LAW had to verify exactly what Kobach submitted: that the information was IDENTICAL. The fact that he didn’t shows that “matches” and “identical” are NOT the same thing.
And BTW, Onaka also didn’t use the same URL for the White House BC in his verification as what Kobach gave either, and claims that what he compared was this OTHER webpage and the original record. So Onaka altered his response to Kobach’s actual request in 2 different ways. Both deliberate actions since it would have been easier to simply type the verbiage verbatim from Kobach’s request than to make up something different to verify.
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.