Thanks.
Here is what I sent:
Dear Mr. Malloy:
Hawai state registrar Alvin Onaka issued a letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett which indirectly confirms that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery to hide that fact.
Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3 requires the HI Dept of Health to provide a verification of the existence of a birth certificate and any other information provided to be verified if it can be certified that the birth really happened that way. Birth certificates are legally declared to be prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and the claims are legally presumed to be true unless the birth certificate was completed a year or more after the birth or major changes have been made to the core claims. Late and altered birth certificates have no probative value unless and until they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body and the probative value is determined. (See HRS 338-17)
So if information is submitted to be verified, the registrar checks the claims against what is in their records. If the claim is found on a valid record the registrar is legally required to verify that information to the requestor. If the submitted information is not found on a valid record, the registrar CANNOT verify the information.
AZ SOS Ken Bennett submitted 2 pages of requests for verification regarding Obama’s birth record. The first was the actual application, where he asked Onaka to verify male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. On the second page Bennett noted that enclosed application and asked that Onaka verify some other information “from the birth record”, IN ADDITION TO verifying the information requested in the application form. Bennett also asked Onaka to verify that the image posted on the White House website was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.
Onaka responded by verifying the existence of a birth certificate for Obama “indicating” (which legally speaking means “claims”) a Honolulu birth. He would NOT verify Oahu as the island of birth, male as the gender, Aug 4, 1961 as the date, Stanley Ann Dunham as the mother, or Barack Hussein Obama as the father. By statute the only reason for him to not verify any of those claims is if he CAN’T, because they are not claimed on a legally valid record.
If Onaka’s mention of Honolulu was verification of the true city of birth, he would also have to verify that Oahu was the true island of birth. But he didn’t. His use of the word Honolulu is therefore known to not be a verification of Honolulu as the real city of birth, but only the CLAIM that is on the birth certificate whose existence Onaka is verifying. He thus didn’t verify ANY of the claims submitted on the application form, since Honolulu was the only word from the application which was even MENTIONED in the verification.
Onaka also would not verify that the White House image was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” Instead, he verified something he was not asked to verify: that the information contained in the White House image “matched” the original record. Later, KS SOS Kris Kobach would ask Onaka to verify that the information contained in the White House image was “identical to” the information contained in the original record, and Onaka would not verify that. So the information that’s actually on the White House image “matches” the HDOH record, but the information as a whole is not “identical to” the information in the HDOH record. IOW, the White House image is not a true and accurate representation of the original record, and the information in the White House image is not “identical to” the information in the original record. But the claims that are on the White House image are what is on the HDOH record.
Since the White House image claims male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama, those claims are also on the HDOH record. That means that the only lawful reason for Onaka to refuse to verify those claims is if the HDOH record itself is non-valid (late and/or altered).
“Late” and “altered” would have to be stamped on the birth certificate in such a case, as well as a notation of the evidence submitted for a late filing and/or alteration - which would explain why the information is not “identical” (the HDOH record contains information that isn’t on the White House image) and why both the short-form and long-form birth certificates had to be forged even though the claims on the forgery are the same claims as on the real record (to get rid of the notations showing the record is non-valid).
Because Bennett asked for additional items to be verified “from the original record”, Onaka must have interpreted the request to be that he verify that those claims are what is ON “the original record”. And those things ARE what is claimed on the record, which is what he verified.
TPM Muckraker published ONE of the 2 request pages, and AZ Central published the letter of verification that Bennett received. Neither source published the whole request and neither source looked up the Hawaii statutes to understand what rules Onaka had to follow. Because of that, they (and the entire rest of the media) reported the exact opposite of what Onaka actually confirmed through that letter of verification. It was reported that Onaka had verified Obama’s birth facts, but in fact he refused to verify them and in so doing, confirmed that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is non-valid and the White House image is a forgery hiding the signs of non-validity.
Attorney Larry Klayman sent by courier (4 days before the DNC Convention began) a letter to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer, informing him of these facts. That letter contains the exact wording of the statutes as well as the complete request and response, and can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf .
The Arizona Tea Party pressured Bennett to ask for the verification he was entitled to receive. He asked Onaka to verify Obama’s core birth facts (including birth date, birth city and island, and parents - which are critical to Presidential eligibility) and Onaka certified his response showing that Onaka CANNOT verify those facts. Obama has no legally-established birth facts. There is no way ANYBODY can lawfully certify that he is eligible to serve as President without a legal determination of where, when, and to whom Obama was born. Bob Bauer suborned perjury when he counseled Germond and Villagairosa to sign the Official Certification of Nomination which Bauer knew to be fraudulent and perjurious. And Bob Bauer committed election fraud when he knowingly submitted the fraudulent/perjurious OCON to nearly every state SOS in order to get Obama’s name on the ballot. To this day we have no idea when, where, or to whom Obama was really born.
The only way that Obama’s birth facts can be legally-established (which is necessary, if he is to “qualify” by Jan 20th as required by the 20th Amendment) is by a judicial procedure in which the non-valid BC is presented as evidence and subjected to the Federal Rules of Evidence. That is exactly what we “birthers” have wanted to happen all along, and Hawaii statute agrees with us. Right now the burden of proof falls on OBAMA, not on the “birthers”. The legal presumption at this point is that the claims on the non-valid BC are NOT true, because the record itself would not be filed late and would not need to have major amendments if Obama was really born at Kapiolani as claimed.
The verification is a sworn disclosure from Onaka, indirectly confirming that what the “birthers” have wondered is actually the legal fact: Obama has no legally-valid birth certificate from Hawaii. This explains why the HDOH altered their 1960-64 birth index to include legally non-valid records (as I’ve documented on my blog; see http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/birth-index-includes-nonvalid-records-_documentation-included_.pdf ).
Discrepancies in the numbering of Obama’s BC and at least 3 others reveals other unlawful alteration of records by the HDOH itself. (See http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bc-number-manipulation-analysis.pdf ) At least 4 BC numbers that were on records in 1961 have been switched to be on a DIFFERENT record. The only lawful authorization for a different BC number to be assigned to a birth certificate after 1961 is if a new, totally fabricated birth certificate is created for somebody because law enforcement (Eric Holder?) claims the person’s life would be in danger if a new BC wasn’t created claiming something different than reality. In such a case, the HDOH would create a BC that says whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder?) says it must say.
Because the HDOH has a BC# for Obama’s record that could not have been on his original BC in 1961 (based on either of the 2 numbering methods described by Hawaii officials), it is almost certain that law enforcement forced the HDOH to create a fictitious BC for Obama that says whatever they (Eric Holder?) wanted it to say.
So the HDOH has revealed that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid, and the claims on the White House image match a totally fictitious BC that law enforcement (Eric Holder?) forced the HDOH to create based on their claim that “birthers” like me would kill Obama if a fake BC was not created for him at the HDOH.
A VERY revealing disclosure that the entire media was too smugly superior to even notice.
I will be happy to accept your public apology when you issue it.
In the meantime, there is no legally-valid BC for Obama that claims ANY of the following: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama.
We literally have NO IDEA where, when, or to whom Obama was born. There is no way he can “qualify” by Jan 20th.
butterdezillion