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.
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.
It helps to know and understand the context of Kobach's comments. It's not an official statement. He requested a third verification letter because Obama's attorney's refused to provide any evidence of any kind in response to the ballot eligibility challenge in Kansas. Kobach knew about the other two previous verification letters but since neither was admitted as evidence, the Kansas Objections Board had no evidence upon which to declare Obama to be eligible to be on the ballot. He also acknowledged the language in the previous verification forms was not legally compelling. I believe that's why he asked if the information was "identical" ... which Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. obviously punted.
The eligibility challenged was dropped, therefore the board could take no further legal action, but by that point, they had already requested a letter of verification. It's not really their burden to produce evidence for a candidate and second, such evidence doesn't satisfy the legal precedent for defining NBC as was brought up in the objection. Kobach failed to explain what legal foundation he was going to use to make Obama eligible, but he didn't have to worry about it after the objecion was withdrawn. The objections board consists of three members, so Kobach's opinion on what the third letter said is simply a personal opinion and doesn't represent the legal opinion of the board who had statutory responsibility to make an official determination. The problems Kobach acknowledged about the AZ and MDEC letters also applied to his letter, so it's not clear how he would have reconciled those issues had the objection not been withdrawn. As far as making a statement to the media, this was simply a political statement to appease potential voters.