Yes. The rationale is in Klayman’s letter, which I didn’t even realize was linked in the WND article. It’s at http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/09/BauerLetter.pdf
But an article that might make it even easier to understand is at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/onaka-confirms-obamas-bc-is-non-valid/
That is the point that Klayman was making in his letter, and it seems to have totally floated overhead in this article. Disappointing.
Alvin Onaka confirmed to Ken Bennett that Hawaii does not have a legally-valid birth record for Obama. This changes everything.
Thanks for the quick answer and the links.
um....nevermind!
(Just saw the answer you already gave to Windflier)
First, thank you for the link. That article is much clearer than this one.
I am not an attorney, but I respectfully disagree with your legal conclusion that Alvin Onaka confirmed to Ken Bennett that Hawaii does not have a legally-valid birth record for Obama.
My knowledge of HI law is woefully incomplete, to say the least, That having been admitted, though, when I read the statute re verification of the facts of the birth by the Director of Health, it seems to me that Onaka did comply with the statute as worded, although it took two requests from Ken Bennett to get him to do so.
I am having trouble following Klayman's legal analysis. Maybe I'm missing something, but there is nothing in the statute that I see that requires the Director of Health to verify anything about a birth record being "legally-valid".
I'm not saying I believe him, but Onaka did (a) verify the existence of a certificate, and (b) certified that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant. From the article:
"HI State Registrar Alvin Onaka sent back a letter (Exhibit C) verifying that they have a birth certificate for Obama, but the lights didn’t go off for any of those birth facts Bennett guessed on the application. In an attached additional request (Exhibit B) Bennett asked Onaka to verify that an attached copy of Obama’s posted long-form was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. Onaka wouldn’t verify that either but did verify that the birth facts claimed on the posted long-form matched the birth facts claimed on the original record at the HDOH."
[emphasis mine]
And in the second place, how would it even be possible for any Director of Health to verify that a printed copy of an image from the internet that was mailed to him was "legally valid"? How could he even certify it as a true copy?
I know that here in MIssouri that if I asked the Dept of Vital Records to verify that a copy that I sent to them was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file, they wouldn't certify it or authenticate it, and rightly so. They would be crazy to do so.
Cordially,