Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
The OIP has rules for how requests need to be answered, and the practice for the entire State of Hawaii is that if the agency is unsure what record is being referred to they need to ask for more information before responding. That’s why the request form has the critical items listed on it - so there are critical points of comparison.
If somebody requested a verification for Barack Hussein Obama II and there was only one Barack Hussein Obama II in their file, for instance, they would know which record was being talked about and they would verify the existence of the record and whatever submitted birth facts that matched what was on a valid record.
If there were two Barack Hussein Obama II’s they would have to see if some of the facts submitted made it clear which on was being talked about. If it still wasn’t clear they would have to ask for more information to clarify which record was meant.
But they don’t have 2 Barack Hussein Obama II’s listed in their index so I’m not sure where you’re going with this. There’s only one person Bennett could have been asking about, so whatever submitted information matched a valid record would be verified, and whatever submitted information didn’t match a valid record would be left unverified.
Who knows?? They have a standard form for requesting birth certificates which is the same form for requesting a letter of verification, yet they made Bennet submit a more detailed request in writing. That looks to me like they were trying to get him to refer specifically to the forgery and not an valid record on file.As to the comma - the COLB is derived from information in a computer database, while the LFBC is an actual copy of a typed document from 1961.
If the information can be entered into the computer database WITHOUT a comma, there's no real reason why Onaka would need to include it. As written, Onaka is presenting the commas as part of his name, so there's nothing to indicate it would be a suffix. Second, there are separate comma errors on Obama's LFBC and on his COLB, which would seem to indicate that commas were entered into the database fields. Odd that commas are such a problem.
Placemark.
Created in April 2011, for instance, as the result of Eric Holder saying that Obama needed a new certificate created, for the sake of his own safety. Eric Holder would get to decide what that BC would say on it, AND IT WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT BC# THAN THE ORIGINAL RECORD HAD - a number that would serve the purpose of providing cover for the person “in danger”. I can’t remember which statute provides for that.
But that BC would not replace the original record in the file. So there WOULD be 2 records for Barack Hussein Obama II if such a thing happened. I’m not sure how Onaka would handle a verification request in that instance.
It’s an interesting question, though, because the BC# that Onaka verified as being on Obama’s record at the HDOh could not have been on that record in 1961 - based on either of the 2 contradictory numbering methods described by Janice Okubo and 1961 local registrar Verna K L Lee respectively.
There are 3 other BC’s known to have been issued from the HDOh which also have BC#’s that could not have been on those records in 1961 (according to either of the 2 numbering methods described). So either somebody has been lying to us about how they numbered the BC’s, or the HDOH itself has been juggling BC#’s. All the more reason that the microfilm rolls from multiple years need to be examined, as well as the computer transaction logs - to figure out what the HDOH has been doing, when, and why.
Ping to this one. This is a scenario where the question of how to handle 2 different records for Barack Hussein Obama II might come in.
HRS 338-17.7, at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm
has this part:
§338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:....... (snip)
(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.”
I wonder if the “law enforcement agency” (Eric Holder) could tell them they had to take off the LATE and ALTERED markings when they created a new BC. Interesting use of the word “information” - almost seems like they would just insert different information into the already-existent BC. Sort of like a forger would do; what would result from that would probably end up looking like a forgery...
And I wonder if the HDOH would have to give the person both versions of the “birth certificate” if the person requested their birth certificate. Fuddy said she gave Obama 2 copies...
The INFORMATION IN A matches the information in B. What if B has additional stuff? It never gets considered, because the only information being verified is the INFORMATION IN A.
The INFORMATION IN A matches the information in B. What if B has additional stuff? It never gets considered, because the only information being verified/considered/compared is the INFORMATION IN A.
“yet they made Bennet submit a more detailed request in writing”
I thought he wanted more information and they would only give him what is on the form unless he specified in writing what he wanted.
“As written, Onaka is presenting the commas as part of his name, so there’s nothing to indicate it would be a suffix.”
Or he is presenting the information as it appears on the LFBC and on Bennett’s request form.
The only commas I see on the COLB are part of the dates which normally have commas.
Yes, everything as stated by the applicant, IF INDEED IT IS THE CASE THAT THE INFORMATION MATCHES WHAT IS IN THEIR RECORDS. What part of "...is for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant' don't you understand? Presumably, if there are facts stated by the applicant that cannot be verified then those particular facts would not be verified. Ya think?
The only thing that is verified is what Onaka actually says that he verifies. If he says “I verify that we have a birth record on file for Barack Hussein Obama’ it does NOT mean that he verifies they have a purple, orange, or valid BC for Obama. A verification only verifies the point it actually says it verifies.
Ok, and what does he explicitly state that he verifies? I have quoted his words here numerous times.
Cordially,
There may be some bureaucratically inscrutable reason for it. Can you please document that they would not simply take the form by itself" I'm not saying I doubt your asssertion, I just would like to see the evidence of it. Thanks
Cordially,
Please read posts 201, 214, and 216.
I guess “C”
Cordially,
Cordially,
>>Larry Klayman?
>>
>>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
This.
Not just a rumor:
[[ http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/category/pay-to-play-politics/ ]]
Harvey Wineberg is on the Obama house deed.
“WND reported in December 2008 that William Miceli, the attorney for convicted political operative Tony Rezko and a fundraiser for Obama, owns the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood.
Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which employed Obama when he did legal work for Rezko.”
“Now, a search of records shows that, in addition to Miceli, the Obama mansion is owned by Chicago Probate Judge Jane L. Stuart and Obama accountant Harvey Wineberg, both of whom are paying taxes on the property.”
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289501/
Why do 3 supporters own Obama's home? Listed as property tax payers for family's Chicago mansion December 09, 2010
The President also announced his intent to appoint Harvey S. Wineberg as a Member of the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability. His biography is below.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/09/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts
By the way, Harvey Wineberg was the Treasurer of Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign and a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign.”
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/obama-tax-returns-for-2004-and-2005-rezko-deals-why-did-obama-have-harvey-wineberg-prepare-2005-tax-return-why-is-wineberg-on-deed-why-did-wineberg-get-administration-post/
Obama Chicago corruption ties are still news makers, they are just not making the news.
Except here.
_________________________________________________
I tried to find an anonymous radio interview that I heard, that was extremely interesting, and sounded very credible, concerning a man who stumbled upon information about Obama's house not being owned by him, and also did research into his social security numbers and many addresses across the Country in almost every state. I have searched the net for the internet, but haven't been able to find it. If anyone has the address of this fairly recent, anonymous interview about Obama's Chicago home, his social security numbers, alias names, and his many addresses, please share it with me. Thank you.
Save time and put me out of my misery please, DID HE OR DIDN'T HE? And if he did, can you show us WHERE HE DID?
My two cents is that HE DID verify the birth date, and he did so by explicitly incorporating by reference the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth that was sent to him by Bennett. See the pdf at post 170.
Cordially,
Each state has there own and in some cases, very different, rules for getting candidates on the ballot.
The issue in Hawaii is that state law REQUIRES a written certification BY THE PARTY. Actually many states do not require this.
I believe the ORIGINAL national letter from DNC did NOT contain the wording required by the state of Hawaii - at first! But as you point out a unique letter - just for Hawaii had to be created.
But Hawaii law does NOT specifically indicate that the NATIONAL party must provide the written (and signed) statement of eligibility. Hawaii law just says ‘party’. And usually the STATE party (HDP) submits the letter meeting Hawaii law. Except in 2008. Then head of HDP Brian Schatz submitted a letter that like Nancy Pelosi’s DNC original letter omitted the legally required wording on meeting Constitutional eligibility. This is called the OCON. This was apparently caught at some point.
Now ask this. Given the highly incestuous political environment in Hawaii if this was a simple mistake would not someone figure out a way to just fix the Brian Schatz letter and re-file it? It may not be exactly by the rules if someone did that to fix an innocent error - but the ultimate fix was not by any clear rule either. So why not fix this ‘oversight’ with a simple amended letter? Probably because Mr. Schatz is smart enough to not give up his chair when the music stops. At some point the music stops and truth comes out. And Mr. Schatz probably does not want his name on a letter declaring Obama to be eligible according to the Constitution. After all, Mr. Schatz has access behind the wizards curtain via a HDP lawyer who did Stanley Ann Dunhams divorce.
Enter Ms. Pelosi/DNC letter 2.0.
So Hawaii law says ‘the party’ will submit an OCON in writting and Schatz original letter fails criteria. So in the last minute the NATIONAL party updates its letter and in a special meeting Hawaii accepts this new letter as the OCON - effectively dicarding (for no formally stated reason) the Brian Schatz letter. The Schatz letter - that was formally submitted by the deadline and was SUPPOSED to meet Hawaii state law did not meet the law. It was either just plain invalid or an attempt to defraud the election commission and ‘slide one by’.
So not only did Hawaii get ‘the special’ DNC letter from Pelosi but they HAD to get it - since Schatz submitted a legally worthless document in apparent hopes of defrauding the election commission.
So now, when the music stops - does Pelosi have a chair?
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.