As much as I would like to be long rid of obama, I have to say this one more time and then I give up.
Hawaii ACCEPTS SELF SWORN APPLICATIONS for a COLB.
obama APPLIED HIMSELF for a COLB early in 2008. HE lied on his own application and swore to it. HE committed the fraud, not Hawaii. And unless no one starts a FORMAL INVESTIGATION AGAINST OBAMA HIMSELF or brings formal charges against OBAMA HIMSELF FOR FRAUD, the statute of limitations that began running in 2008 for charging him will run out this year.
Hawaii only did what they were legally bound to do which was to issue a COLB based on his own selfsworn affidavit. The other records Hawaii might have on obama, including whether he was adopted by soetoro and his name changed, are sealed and null once he updated his own information and the only way they can be opened is if HE is legally and formally under investigation by law enforcement pending charges for deliberate false swearing, multiple charges of fraud, and a whole host of other charges that apply here, which NO ONE, including Arpaio, has had the guts to do.
polarik and that weasel hillary lawyer monkeywrenched this entire thing with the bogus forgery charge on the original COLB. It was NOT a forgery. It was a genuine Hawaiian COLB based on OBAMA’S DELIBERATE FRAUD. But polarik and hillary’s weasel lawyer so misdirected everyone’s attention that serious investigation has never taken place for the REAL charge which is what obama himself has done...and has very nearly gotten away with. In a few months, no one will be able to charge him with anything. He faked everyone out and he is winning this dog and pony show.
It’s the reason he paid all of his back fines and dropped his law license so there would be NO REASON for law enforcement to look into his background and issue a warrant for information. He covered his bases exceedingly well.
Onaka only has to VERIFY that the ap as PRESENTED for the COLB and the info on the COLB and the record obama swore to match. And that is all he has done.
Whatever you send regarding anything else is going into the circular file, and you can thank Phil Berg and polarik.
In order to have a valid HI birth certificate the facts of Obama’s birth had to be filed with HI within a year of his birth, or he had to file for a HI BC sometime after 1982, showing that his parent was a resident of Hawaii for the year preceding his birth (which I don’t believe is true of Stanley Ann dunham). If either of those things had happened, there would be a valid BC on file in Hawaii (one which is prima facie - “on its face” - evidence and is to be taken at face value unless somebody has evidence to prove the claims false) and Alvin Onaka would legally HAVE to verify to Ken Bennett any fact submitted to him which was included on that valid BC.
If neither of those things happened, and the filing of the birth information was late or else there were major changes made to the birth information, Hawaii law says that the probative (evidentiary) value is determined when the record is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. All other birth certificates are declared in Hawaii law to be prima facia evidence, but NOT late and altered BC’s. Those have NO LEGAL VALUE WHATSOEVER until a judge can look at all the evidence, apply the Federal Rules of Evidence, and determine whether there is enough evidence for those birth facts to be legally-established.
So if the BC is late or altered, Onaka can’t verify any of the facts on it. If the BC is valid, the facts are legally presumed to be true because the record is prima facia evidence, and Onaka HAS to verify ALL the facts on it if a requestor submits those facts for verification.
Bennett submitted the following facts: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. Onaka could not verify any of those facts, even though he verified that those are the claims on the record they have. This means that Hawaii does not have a valid birth certificate for Obama.
Obama may well have requested a COLB in the past, but any BC he got back from Hawaii would have included either LATE or ALTERED stamps (since those are the things that invalidate a BC). That’s why he had to forge both the short-form and long-form images that have been posted online. And there is forensic evidence that they were both forged. Arpaio’s posse has documented the evidence for the long-form. I have done experiments trying to duplicate the non-distortion on the seal from the Factcheck photos of the short-form and there is no way that seal was on that paper before it was photographed. Onaka’s verification legally confirms what the forensics have told us for a while.
Obama did perjure himself in Arizona. He twice swore that he was eligible to be President. He knew he had no legally-established birth facts and that nobody in this country can LAWFULLY claim he is qualified. He also perjured himself twice in West Virginia and in North Carolina for doing the same thing. The current legal interpretation of federal law is that a sitting President cannot be subject to arrest or criminal trial without first being impeached. I think that’s hogwash (precisely because of the statute of limitations, which would mean that Presidents have a license to commit crimes as long as they can stay in office beyond the statute of limitations). But it doesn’t matter what I think. The secret service guys would never let anybody arrest Obama because that is the current legal understanding. Sheriff Joe cannot arrest Obama until after Obama is convicted in an impeachment OR until Obama is found to not be the President. I’m working on #2.
And we have the ammunition to be successful on #2, if we can convince somebody with standing (I’m thinking either Congress or somebody like Hobby Lobby) to file a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility on the basis of Onaka’s verification that his HI BC is non-valid and he thus has no legally-established birth facts. Because there have been challenges that made it to SCOTUS that were not heard because Sotomayor and Kagan refused to recuse themselves, I suggest that the lawsuit actually directly challenge Sotomayor and Kagan’s positions on SCOTUS, which would REQUIRE them to recuse themselves.
Does this help explain what’s going on here?