Posted on 05/24/2012 8:20:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion
Seems to me that Alvin Onaka and former interim HDOH Director Neal Palafox are as good a bet as any. Payback would be sweet for Palafox, and staying out of jail would be a good deal for Onaka. Or it could be some of the “little people” who are just sick of the crap.
What about the guy who was brought in from Wisconsin prior to 2008 as Chief Elections Officer. right after the election then he was promptly run out of Hawaii due to some “trumped up?” charges of corruption with respect to vendor relations. If I recall The Daily Pen wrote an article that went quite extensively into the players in the 2008 elections on the islands.
That would be Kevin B Cronin. He might have some things to say as well. Good catch.
Exactly...might be worth catching up with him.
... which according to HRS 338-14.3 would have required the HDOH to certify the true facts of Obama’s birth - including place of birth, date of birth, and the parents’ names.
That is exactly what Hawaii verified. They verified 12 specific items (including but not limited to the place & date of birth and the parents' names), verified that the information in the copy of the LFBC submitted by Bennett matched their records and went a step further:
"I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event." - Alvin T. Onaka, May 22, 2012http://www.kvoa.com/files/Verification%20In%20Lieu%20of%20Certified%20Copy.PDF
that they CANNOT verify any birth facts for Obama because his birth record is late and amended and thus not legally probative.
Well, they've done exactly what you said they couldn't.
... which according to HRS 338-14.3 would have required the HDOH to certify the true facts of Obama’s birth - including place of birth, date of birth, and the parents’ names.
That is exactly what Hawaii verified. They verified 12 specific items (including but not limited to the place & date of birth and the parents' names), verified that the information in the copy of the LFBC submitted by Bennett matched their records and went a step further:
"I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event." - Alvin T. Onaka, May 22, 2012http://www.kvoa.com/files/Verification%20In%20Lieu%20of%20Certified%20Copy.PDF
that they CANNOT verify any birth facts for Obama because his birth record is late and amended and thus not legally probative.
Well, they've done exactly what you said they couldn't.
Correction: parenthetical inserted after wrong clause.
That is exactly what Hawaii verified. They verified 12 specific items (including but not limited to the place & date of birth and the parents’ names), verified that the information in the copy of the LFBC submitted by Bennett matched their records and went a step further:
Should read:
That is exactly what Hawaii verified. They verified 12 specific items, verified that the information in the copy of the LFBC submitted by Bennett matched their records (including but not limited to the place & date of birth and the parents’ names), and went a step further:
“I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.” - Onaka
He is not certifying that “the above is a true and correct copy”. He is certifying that he looked at a record.
Onaka, elsewhere in his email to Bennett, said, “I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original in our file.”
Original what? Internet image? Or vital record?
Onaka’s slippery language is a contrivance.
A routine, ordinary, mundane, “the above is a true and correct copy” would suffice, and it is reasonable to expect such.
Artfully worded customized responses composed under legal guidance, against a backdrop of evolving statements, for what should be routine matter, does not instill confidence.
That certifying statement says that the INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE VITAL RECORD ON FILE was what they used to “verify” the facts of the vital event.
He’s saying that what he is verifying is what is in the vital record on file, which is what they were specifically asked to verify, from Bennett’s original request. Look at that request and you will see that he asked to verify the items FROM THE RECORD ON FILE.
But if you want to argue your point that they were verifying the true facts of Obama’s birth, then explain to me why they didn’t respond to the actual verification request form that Bennett originally filed - the one asking them to verify the date and place of birth and the parents’ names (the items relevant to Presidential eligibility).
As Wesley said to Buttercup in “The Princess Bride” (after she said of the vows “We sort of skipped that part...”) - “If you didn’t say it, you didn’t do it.”
Why did they skip the official verification of the critical facts from the official verification request form?
That's incorrect. Onaka certified that the 12 specific items he listed were obtained DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL vital record on file at the HDoH.
Onaka, elsewhere in his email to Bennett, said, “I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original in our file.” Original what? Internet image? Or vital record?
Original vital record.
Onaka’s slippery language is a contrivance.
Slippery language? Contrivance?
The only contrivance I see is that of those who refuse to accept the very clear proof that Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate on file and that the data contained on the LFBC released by the WH matches the data on said original vital record.
Those who continue to parse statements from Hawaii are, IMO, attempting to make those statements fit their preconceived conclusions rather than facing the truth.
The vital records where used to verify the facts of the vital event. That is what has been certified.
Onaka's statment has the appearance of certifying the facts, but it does not "certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the original on file"
Yes, that is slippery language. If you don't like it, take it up with those who uttered it.
No more documents certifying the existence of other documents. Arizona has Constitutional power. I'd like to see them use it.
-PJ
“Those who continue to parse statements from Hawaii...”
Liars can’t blame doubters.
Liars:
there is a notation
it is half typed half written
COLB is all there is, there is no LFBC
LFBC produced
challenging the authority of AZ SOS
People who utter statements of, shall we say “dubious veracity”, and who have a general “mis-demeanor” qualify as liars, IMO. When a liar’s word is doubted no one should complain.
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.Hawaii didn't "skip" any critical facts. The date and time of birth and the parents' names were verified with the statement indicating that the copy of the LFBC submitted by Bennett matched what is on file at the HDoH. Hawaii supplied everything Bennett asked for in his email dated March 30, 2012. To imply otherwise is to ignore the truth.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
Onaka's statment has the appearance of certifying the facts, but it does not "certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the original on file"
Bennett did not ask Hawaii to verify that the LFBC was a true and correct copy of the original because it is not a copy of the original. He asked Hawaii to verify that the copy of Obama's LFBC he submitted was "a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files." Onaka did that and way, way more.
Well, it’d be nice to see photographs of the original and the binder in which it is contained, but Hawaii has already stated that they do not have any laws on their books that would allow anyone physical access to the original vital records. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Read exactly what Onaka stated.
Contrary to your claim, Onaka did not certify that the COLB submitted by Bennett was “a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
Onaka said, “I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original in our file.” Onaka didn’t say it matches the vital record.
Too much effort has been exerted to avoid the routine “the above is a true and correct copy of the vital record”, which is telling.
Why didn’t the HDOH give a routine response to Bennett’s form requesting verification in lieu of a certified copy? They are not on the record anywhere saying specifically that Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961, for instance - which is what the official request form asked for.
Why not?
All they responded to was a SPECIFIC particularly-worded request that they verify WHAT WAS ON THE RECORD ON FILE. That was not a routine request to which HRS 338-14.3 refers (and they had Bennett DROP the request that WAS a routine request, for which HRS 338-14.3 applies). It was a specific request to be told what is on that document; that is NOT a request to verify the truthful facts of the birth. And Onaka told him what was on that document - certified that this is what was on the document. Nowhere did he say that the document was legally valid. He verified that the record exists, and he verified what was on the record.
You have to recognize the difference between an official verification and what Bennett asked for. An official verification is certification of the TRUE FACTS of the birth; what Bennett asked for in the special portion of his request was a verification of what is on the record they have. Do you recognize that difference? Do you recognize that Bennett’s request which was specifically answered specifically stated that those were to be items FROM THE RECORD - which is different than verifying that those items are the LEGALLY TRUE FACTS?
Where did he say “original”? For that matter where did he say “legally valid”? Where did he ever say “true facts”?
Why wouldn’t they verify that Obama’s posted long-form is a “true and accurate representation of the record on file”?
Earlier on, you had tried to say that the “re-wording” had to do with whether or not Bennett was eligible to receive the information he requested. Now we find out that HI apparently agrees that Bennett is eligible to receive a verification - but what they responded to was NOT what he requested. And in fact the portion of his request that is STANDARD was actually not responded to.
When they verify they have to verify SPECIFICS ITEMS. A generic statement that the information contained on a document matches what they have is not how they are supposed to verify anything. If they are going to verify his date of birth, they have to be given a date of birth and they have to say whether that is the true date of birth for that person, according to their records - unless the request is modified somehow, to ask them to verify something else. And that’s what Bennett’s special-worded request was: it was a request to verify that those particular items are WHAT WAS ON THE RECORD - not that those particular claims are LEGALLY TRUE.
The fact of the matter is that Bennett submitted a request to specifically verify that Aug 4, 1961 is the factual, legally-probative date of birth for Obama, and HI never verified that.
Again I ask you: Why not? By giving any verification at all they acknowledged that Bennett was eligible to receive that particular verification as well. Why would they not give him that?
“Obama” certainly is not a natural born citizen.
Just a follow-up to that post.
Onaka verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record on file. That includes, for instance, date of birth.
But they never verified that the original record is legally valid. So they never verified that Aug 4, 1961 is the legally-valid date of birth for Obama. That’s precisely my point. All they would verify is that the record CLAIMS that.
This whole verification is that they have a record and that the record claims the same things as were on Obama’s posted long-form.
But the fact that they went through all these gyrations - and ultimately wouldn’t release a thing to Bennett until he allowed them to get away with these gyrations - in order to specifically NOT have to say that any of those facts are true, legally-probative claim, speaks for itself.
You can say, “Well, we know that they are verifying the truth - legal validity - of an Aug 4, 1961 birth because they said that what’s on the posted long-form (an Aug 4, 1961 birth) matches what they have on their record.” But that requires one other given, according to logic and geometric-type proofs: It requires that their record be legally valid.
Sort of like this:
If A(posted BC) = B (BC on file) and B is legally valid, then A=legally valid.
But Onaka never said that B is legally valid. So the logic you’re presenting amounts to: If A=B then A is legally valid. Doesn’t work.
And it’s especially suspicious that they would only say A=B, when what they were legally required to answer from the submitted verification form was whether C (just a fact, like born on Aug 4, 1961 - regardless of whether it is on A or B) is legally valid.
They refused to do that. And I’m asking you why. Saying that A=B is very, very different than saying C is legally valid. Why did they opt for “A=B” rather than “C is valid”?
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.