Replies

What I’ve seen from him suggests he’s going to demand legal verification, as authorized in HRS 338-18. Janice Okubo has told me that they don’t do letters of verification in lieu of certified BC because that’s what the Certification of Live Birth is. So in accordance with Hawaii law, Bennett is expecting a certified COLB for Obama, unless they decide to do a letter of verification.

But Bennett has been informed that there is even a problem with that. This is what I sent him this morning:

Ken, just a few facts that come into play here.

At this point, given what both the HDOH and former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama have disclosed through legal responses to UIPA requests, Obama’s birth record is amended and also includes affidavits to support the birth claims (which would only be necessary for a LATE birth certificate). Tsukiyama’s response in particular referenced HRS 338-13, which is the section dealing specifically with late and altered BC’s. If you need to see that response I could share that with you.

In addition, the 1960-64 birth index has been altered to include legally non-valid BC’s, and Virginia Sunahara’s name was missing from the database (though still included in the altered index) when queried for me - which strongly suggests that the alteration of the birth index was to allow BOTH Virginia’s and Obama’s names to be included in the birth index even though only one could actually be in the DATABASE of legally-valid records at any given time. (Because only Virginia’s BC# is for a legally-valid record; Obama’s has an L in front of it for “late”.)

All of which would only be necessary if Obama’s birth record is late and/or altered, and thus not legally valid.

If Obama’s birth record is late and/or amended, Hawaii law (HRS 338-16) says that the probative value must be determined by the judicial or administrative person or body to whom the BC is presented as evidence. IOW, the State of Hawaii cannot verify anything from a late or altered BC, and the only way the birth facts can be legally ascertained is by the actual BC being presented AS EVIDENCE - along with all the supporting affidavits/filings, which are required to be listed on the BC itself.

So the HDOH is in a dilemma. If Obama’s BC is late and/or altered they CANNOT legally verify anything for you. Based on what the HDOH and OIP have already disclosed, the HDOH should not be able to verify anything for you.

If they DO legally verify anything for you, then the previous legal responses from both the HDOH and OIP offices have been fraudulent. So at that point you have to decide which story to believe from them, since they have given contradictory official, legal responses.

If you’re waiting for criminal charges to be filed before requiring an audit of the records, it’s never going to happen, because Arizona cannot file charges against the HDOH, and the feds will never do that as long as Eric Holder is in control of all federal law enforcement. He’s too busy protecting “his people” from criminal prosecution. Even if it is proven in a court of law that both Obama and the HDOH committed forgery and fraud with the BC put online, that still doesn’t tell us what Hawaii actually has for Obama; it would only tell us that the HDOH couldn’t be trusted - which we already know because they’ve altered AT LEAST their birth index and their database. And the HHS inspector general’s report notes that even a genuine record can easily be fraudulent, so the only way to have confidence is by auditing ALL the citizenship records.

So ultimately, the only way we’re ever going to know anything is by auditing all the citizenship records. Which is called for anyway because all of them have evidence of tampering: draft registration is forged, BC has been forged twice and the HDOh has indicated that what they really have is altered and/or late; passport file has been breached 3 times; social security number fails E-verify and originates from a location where Obama never lived. The only 4 legal records we can have any knowledge about, and there are signs of fraud with ALL of them. The only way we’ll ever know the truth about ANY of those records is by auditing the paper and electronic trail/processing for those records. Which is more than any SOS can or should be stuck doing.

When I was helping to fashion Nebraska’s eligibility bill, we wanted to simply provide a platform so that any person would have standing to require an audit of a candidate’s proof of eligibility. The only way to do that is through a lawsuit that the candidate would HAVE to have resolved before getting their name on the ballot - otherwise they would just stall on a court case and the default would be for their name to appear on the ballot. So the key to making the PROCESS work is by putting the burden of proof on the candidate, in a setting where the records can be required to be audited. The way that happens is by a SOS denying placement on the ballot - which the candidate would then sue over and the whole question would be thrown to the PROPER place for Constitutional issues to be decided: the courts.

IOW, refusing placement on the ballot simply moves the legal determination of eligibility to those who have the legal authority to demand access to audit the records. Which is exactly what is required by Hawaii law, if the previous reponses by the HDOH and OIP (indicating an altered and/or late BC) have been accurate. And what the HHS inspector general emphatically recommended to be required - especially for cases where there are signs of possible fraud and where much is at stake. You’ll never get a clearer example of both those criteria than this situation with Barack Obama.

Once again, I’m sorry this is so long. The devil is in the details, and they take some time to explain.

Nellie