This BC is in the files of HDOH and they can verify until the cows come home that yes indeedee they really, really, really, pinky swear and cross their hearts that that is the same data they have on file but that doesn't make it true.
If that’s a long winded way of saying Onaka/Hawaii DOH are lying when they confirmed that Obama posted a certified copy of his Birth Certificate on the Whitehouse website and then, subsequently, verified (in a legal deposition) that the data it contained was the same as the data they hold in their archives, then you’ve got a problem because every court on the land will consider it prima facie evidence that his birth records are genuine and you’ve got nothing that will stand up in court as evidence against it.
The HDOH has never confirmed that what Obama posted is what they sent him. In fact, they have refused to verify that what Obama posted is even a “true and accurate representation” of what they sent him.
The lawful way for Onaka to expose a false (not known to be legally true) birth claim is by refusing to verify those claims when asked point-blank by somebody qualified to be told the truth. That’s exactly what Onaka did when Bennett asked him to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama. The only legal reason for him to do that is because he CAN’T verify those things as true. He obeyed the law which required him to expose birth claims that the State of Hawaii does not vouch for as being accurate.
And as we found from the Terry Lakin trial, there is a legal presumption that the disclosures of a government agency are accurate and in compliance with the law, unless there is evidence to refute that presumption. So anybody who says that Onaka made a mistake when he refused to verify the above 6 birth facts (and refused to verify that what Obama posted is a true and accurate representation of the original record on file) - a consistency of response that defies any excuse that he was confused or accidentally overlooked the actual verification application - has to show evidence that he erred. IOW, show evidence that the actual record in their office is legally valid.
There is no such evidence. And the very law-enforcement-established fact of the long-form forgery corroborates that there was something on the real record that Obama’s handlers had to hide from public view.
The fact that the 1960-64 birth index contains names from legally non-valid birth certificates makes the index worthless at best and at worst reveals the HDOH deliberately deceiving the public by including non-valid records in a list which they present to the public as if it means anything legal.
So not only do we have the legal presumption that Onaka’s disclosure accurately exposes legally non-true birth claims for Obama, but we’ve got forensic evidence which refutes the only 3 documents the public has been allowed to see besides this verification: the forged COLB and longform from the Obama camp itself, and the 1960-64 birth index from the HDOH (which is known to contain non-valid records).
The legal presumption at this point is that Onaka was correct when he legally confirmed that there is no legally-valid record in Hawaii claiming that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama.
And furthermore, the reason for a complete (accepted/numbered by the HDOH) discloseable (non-adoption) record to be legally non-valid is if it is late or altered, and in both those instances the record has no probative value unless it is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. IOW, Obama HAS to submit the real record in a legal setting in order for him to even HAVE a legally-determined age based on that HI birth certificate.
Every SOS in the country now has to legally presume that there is no legally-valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii. Onaka has officially and legally put us all on notice that if Obama has a legally-established age that qualifies him to be President, it is legally established by a birth record from somewhere besides Hawaii.
The HDOH has never confirmed that what Obama posted is what they sent him. In fact, they have refused to verify that what Obama posted is even a “true and accurate representation” of what they sent him.
The lawful way for Onaka to expose a false (not known to be legally true) birth claim is by refusing to verify those claims when asked point-blank by somebody qualified to be told the truth. That’s exactly what Onaka did when Bennett asked him to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama. The only legal reason for him to do that is because he CAN’T verify those things as true. He obeyed the law which required him to expose birth claims that the State of Hawaii does not vouch for as being accurate.
And as we found from the Terry Lakin trial, there is a legal presumption that the disclosures of a government agency are accurate and in compliance with the law, unless there is evidence to refute that presumption. So anybody who says that Onaka made a mistake when he refused to verify the above 6 birth facts (and refused to verify that what Obama posted is a true and accurate representation of the original record on file) - a consistency of response that defies any excuse that he was confused or accidentally overlooked the actual verification application - has to show evidence that he erred. IOW, show evidence that the actual record in their office is legally valid.
There is no such evidence. And the very law-enforcement-established fact of the long-form forgery corroborates that there was something on the real record that Obama’s handlers had to hide from public view.
The fact that the 1960-64 birth index contains names from legally non-valid birth certificates makes the index worthless at best and at worst reveals the HDOH deliberately deceiving the public by including non-valid records in a list which they present to the public as if it means anything legal.
So not only do we have the legal presumption that Onaka’s disclosure accurately exposes legally non-true birth claims for Obama, but we’ve got forensic evidence which refutes the only 3 documents the public has been allowed to see besides this verification: the forged COLB and longform from the Obama camp itself, and the 1960-64 birth index from the HDOH (which is known to contain non-valid records).
The legal presumption at this point is that Onaka was correct when he legally confirmed that there is no legally-valid record in Hawaii claiming that Barack Hussein Obama II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama.
And furthermore, the reason for a complete (accepted/numbered by the HDOH) discloseable (non-adoption) record to be legally non-valid is if it is late or altered, and in both those instances the record has no probative value unless it is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. IOW, Obama HAS to submit the real record in a legal setting in order for him to even HAVE a legally-determined age based on that HI birth certificate.
Every SOS in the country now has to legally presume that there is no legally-valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii. Onaka has officially and legally put us all on notice that if Obama has a legally-established age that qualifies him to be President, it is legally established by a birth record from somewhere besides Hawaii.
This BC is in the files of HDOH and they can verify until the cows come home that yes indeedee they really, really, really, pinky swear and cross their hearts that that is the same data they have on file but that doesn't make it true.
Bullshyte, and you know it yet as a good obamaroid you keep trying to twist the issue to fit what you feel duty bound to spittle.