Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PPS Video: Major Players To Expose Obama's Eligibility; Sheriff Joe Aiming For Prosecution? (Arpaio)
BirtherReport.com ^ | January 13, 2013 | Carl Gallups

Posted on 01/13/2013 7:08:32 PM PST by Seizethecarp

A few weeks back we reported to you at PPS that some surprises were in the work on the Obama citizenship scandal. We reported that we expected some breaking news on the matter within weeks. The particular event that we expected did not happen, but only through a very strange and unfortunate set of circumstances. However, do not be dismayed, as it turns out the plan b for the matter may turn out to be a more powerful revelation event than the first planned one. Since it still involves some of the same major players and perhaps even more major players this time.

We still cannot reveal the details of the plan however I can report with honesty and accuracy these two facts:

1. A potentially monumental Plan B exposure of the Obama fraud is in the works by very reliable and competent people. The plan involves people who will easily garner national attention to the matter.

2. PPS has been in direct contact with the Sheriff Arpaio investigation. We have just again been assured by Lt. Mike Zullo lead investigator that the investigation and potential angles of prosecution are still going full steam ahead.

(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Politics
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; birftards; carlgallups; joearpaio; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last
To: JohnnyP

The alleged president was born in Honolulu. A natural born American.


51 posted on 01/16/2013 3:39:24 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: palmer; butterdezillion; Nero Germanicus

Beside the verification to SoS Bennett (linked by Nero)there are two other verifications.

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg

http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf

In both of those Dr. Onaka verifies the information on the pdf matches the information on the original.

These are the only Hawaii verifications that have been posted to the net. So we have no idea what’s the standard format for a verification.

The form that SoS Bennett sent to Hawaii is the standard form used to request a birth certificate. The items on the form are normally used by the DOH to locate the correct BC to be verified.

1) On a normal verification (not Obama’s) would Dr. Onaka list all the items on the request form?

2) Or would he simple say “I verify we have the original vital record for so and so on file at the DOH indicating birth in Hawaii.”?

3) Are the request form’s items implicitly verified by the fact that they used those items to identify the one correct BC containing that info?

On Bennet’s rquest form, he entered the following info:

Name: Barack Hussein Obama, II
Gender: Male
DOB: August 4, 1961
Place of Birth: Honolulu, Oahu
Father’s: Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mother’s Maiden Name: Stanley Ann Dunham

He also requested the following information be verified:

Department of Health File: 151 61 10641
Time of Birth: 7:24 p.m.
Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
Age of Father: 25
Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
Age of Mother: 18
Birthplace of Mother: Wichita, Kansas
Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
Date accepted by local registrar: August-8-1961

Butter’s contention is that those last items are only a verification that the original BC claims these items. But couldn’t you use the same argument even if all the items (request form and extra items) had been listed on Dr. Onaka’s verification?

And wouldn’t that hold true for every verification issued by Hawaii?

How would you very know whether or not there was a big red “ALTERED” stamped on a particular BC by just looking at a verification?

Could there be legal reasons that Dr. Onaka cannot use the magic word “identical” and those reasons have nothing to do with the legal validity of the BC? For example, the coping and scanning process and the creating of the pdf all cause image distortions would they still be legally identical?

If in coping the original onto the green security paper was the image reduced to fit on the paper? If so would it still be “identical”?

On SoS Bennet’s verification, Dr. Onaka did not list the items on the request form, but he did verify that those items are on the original BC held by the DOH.

“Additionally, 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 record in our files.”

Does that mean that he is verifing that all of the items on the request form match the information on the original BC?


52 posted on 01/16/2013 12:37:14 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

“Matching” is totally irrelevant for legal purposes. The “information” on my $3 bill would match the “information” on anybody else’s, but none of them would have any legal value. “Matching” what’s on a legally non-valid record means nothing.

The application is used to find the correct record, but Bennett clearly asked that the information in that application be verified. Onaka did not verify that information. To verify it, you have to say it. If you don’t say it, you don’t verify it.

We would know there was no “LATE” or “ALTERED” stamp on the record if Onaka said, “I, Alvin Onaka, verify that the Hawaii DOH has a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama, II. I verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father BArack Hussein Obama.”

Or he could say, “I, Alvin Onaka verify that the HI DOH has a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama, II and verify that the following are his true facts of birth: Gender: male DOB: Aug 4, 1961 (etc)...”

The point of it is what exactly he says he is verifying. Nowhere does he say he’s verifying anything as true. And he doesn’t even mention the core pieces of information, which were all on the actual application.

“Information” is the CONTENT, not the presentation of it. Take the dates that Bennett requested to be verified “from the birth record”. He requested them in a certain format, but Onaka responded with the date in the format EXACTLY AS IT IS ON THE WHITE HOUSE IMAGE. He could still verify that the INFORMATION Bennett gave was what was actually on the BC because the format is irrelevant. No matter how you format the date it is still the same physical day, and that is the INFORMATION.

Onaka would not verify that the INFORMATION contained in the White House image is identical to the INFORMATION contained in the HDOH record. This isn’t talking about syntax or appearances (such as copying irregularities); it’s talking about the content. The content is not identical.


53 posted on 01/16/2013 1:44:19 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; palmer; Nero Germanicus

“the following are his true facts of birth”

How could he possibly verify that the facts are true? He wasn’t there. All he can verify, all any registrar can verify, is that the facts on the presented certified copy are the same as on the original birth certificate.

“The content is not identical.”

So in box 6c on the pdf is the entry “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and Dr. Onaka says that matches the entry on the original. So are you saying that the entry might not be “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” but something else?

Butter, you are in contact with Larry Klayman, why not have him request a verification? He should meet the requirements of §338-18 (g) (4)

Have Dr. Onaka verify the following:

Box 1a - Barack
Box 1b - Hussein
Box 1c - Obama, II
Box 2 – Male
Box 3 – single
Box 4 - no entry
Box 5a - August 4, 1961
Box 5b – 7:24 p.m.
Box 6a – Honolulu
Box 6b – Oahu
Box 6c – Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Box 6d – yes
Box 7a – Honolulu
Box 7b – Oahu
Box 7c – Honolulu, Hawaii
Box 7d – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway
Box 7e – yes
Box 7f – no entry/blank
Box 7g – no
Box 8 - Barack Hussein Obama
Box 9 – African
Box 10 - 25
Box 11 – Kenya, East Africa
Box 12a – Student
Box 12b – University
Box 13 - Stanley Ann Dunham
Box 14 – Caucasian
Box 15 – 18
Box 16 – Wichita, Kansas
Box 17a – None
Box 17b – no entry/blank
Box 18a - Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
Box 18b – 8-7-61
Box 19a – David A. Sinclair
Box 19b – 8-8-61
Box 20 – Aug-8 1961
Box 21 – V. K. Lee
Box 22 – Aug –8 1961
Box 23 – no entry/blank

Would that satisfy you?


54 posted on 01/16/2013 2:27:05 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

If claims are made on a legally valid record, the claims are prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and are legally presumed to be true. If the record is legally valid the “call on the field” is that the claims are true, and the burden of proof is on the person challenging those claims. If there isn’t enough evidence to overcome the presumption of truth, then the ruling on the field stands. And all Hawaii birth records are prima facia evidence EXCEPT those that are “late” or “altered”.

If it was filed way late or had major pieces of critical information changed, it is legally suspect. HRS 338-17 says that those records have no probative value unless and until they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body and the probative value determined. The HDOH doesn’t do investigations. They just keep records. And they flag late and altered records so that everybody will know that the State of Hawaii considers the claims suspect. The law says that the evidence has to be sorted out in a legal setting (settings which are subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence) before those birth certificates are worth ANYTHING, legally speaking.

If the record is late or altered it is NOT prima facia evidence. The claims are NOT considered to be true. The burden of proof is totally shifted. The “call on the field” is that the claims are NOT true, and it is up to the registrant to overturn that call - to present his/her case to a judge and try to convince the judge that the record has any evidentiary value whatsoever.

All the cases so far have assumed that Obama has a prima facia record - because you wouldn’t expect the 1960-64 birth index to include records that are legally worth as much as toilet paper. But the HDOH altered their birth index so it would include non-valid (legally worthless) birth certificates also. And now Onaka has revealed that Obama’s BC is one of those legally-worthless records that was put into the 1960-64 birth index. The record itself is so suspect that Onaka cannot lawfully vouch for the accuracy of any of the claims on it.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. That’s what Klayman informed DNC Counsel Bob Bauer of - and Bauer is a lawyer so knows darn well that this is true. So did the MDEC attorneys, which is why they wanted to focus on “matching” - because “matching” is the best Onaka can verify, since the record itself is legal trash. It is literally a $3 bill, and the attorneys knew darn good and well that they were asking if the “information contained in” the White House $3 bill MATCHES the “information contained in” the HDOH $3 bill. It’s a totally irrelevant question, because they are both legally worth nothing.

That same concept - presumption of truth - applies to Onaka’s verification. The legal “call on the field” is a presumption of REGULARITY - that is, that routine requests are handled in compliance with the law. To overcome that presumption of regularity, you have to have evidence that the request does NOT obey the law. IOW, Onaka is presumed to be accurate, unless you have evidence to overcome that presumption. The burden of proof falls on those who want to say that Onaka “just forgot” or some other such thing. Right now, the legal presumption - the legal “call on the field” - is that Onaka complied with HRS 338-14.3 as he swore on the letter of verification, and only verified what he lawfully could. If he didn’t verify something it was for the only reason allowed by HRS 338-14.3: because he CAN’T, because the claim is not found on a legally-valid record.


55 posted on 01/16/2013 2:55:55 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Klayman is too busy; I can’t get his attention right now.

He would have to request verification that those are the true facts of birth for Obama.

But at this point, after having 2 verifications which indicate the same thing, it would still make a score of 2-1 against Obama’s record being valid - and if Onaka changed his story at this point it would call into question ALL his communications.

No matter how you slice it, the only way this thing can be legally resolved is by having the record presented as evidence where Federal Rules of Evidence apply - and having ALL the pertinent records examined. That means the microfilms, the paper records, and the computer transaction logs for ALL HIS VITAL AND CITIZENSHIP RECORDS - including AT LEAST his BC, passport file, and draft registration, and should also include his college records or anywhere else where he may have submitted some proof of citizenship.

Because the HDOH itself has been caught in multiple instances of law-breaking (including at least the falsification of the 1960-64 birth index and the changing of at least 4 BC#’s from August of 1961, as well as hiding records that were required to be public, claiming policies that were not made public and thus could not be in effect, etc)..... all the processing would have to be examined as well. We have to find out who was telling the truth about BC numbering - Okubo, Verna Lee, or neither. And the only way to know that is to look at multiple years of randomly-selected microfilms. The computer transaction logs for those other 3 August 1961 BC’s would have to be examined also, to see exactly what processing was done, when, and by whom. Etc.

We’re talking deep doo-doo and crimes that have been committed, and it’s going to take a lot of unwinding to get to the bottom of this mess. That’s what has to happen. Legally speaking.


56 posted on 01/16/2013 3:04:56 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; palmer; Nero Germanicus

It could not be “filed way late” we know it was recorded and “late” certificates most be non-recorded.

Box 6c - “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”

What is the situations that get this entered into Box 6c?

Could the grandparents go to the DOH and say - Our daugther had a baby at Kapiolani Hospital and we would like to register him?

Could Obama go to the DOH in 2007 and say I was born at Kapiolani Hospital and I want tpo register my birth?

Is that even reasonable?


57 posted on 01/16/2013 3:05:40 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

BC#’s for at least 4 children born in Aug 1961 have been altered. The BC#’s they currently have on their BC’s at the HDOH could not have been on those BC’s in 1961 - according to either of the 2 contradictory numbering methods described by past and current HDOH spokesmen.

That means that the HDOH is altering BC#’s. The only place the statutes allow for somebody to get a BC# that’s different than the one they are originally given is if law enforcement says that a totally fake new BC needs to be created to protect the registrant from danger. In that case, the totally false BC will say whatever law enforcement says it needs to say.

None of it true.

That is how Obama got all that stuff on a BC at the HDOH. If he was really born at Kapiolani, there would be no need for the record to be either late or altered.


58 posted on 01/16/2013 3:16:14 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; palmer; Nero Germanicus

And when were these numbers switched - 1961 or later?

Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when.

(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.

Assigned a “new number” not someone else’s number and filed by that new number.


59 posted on 01/16/2013 5:18:21 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
But the HDOH altered their birth index so it would include non-valid (legally worthless) birth certificates also. And now Onaka has revealed that Obama’s BC is one of those legally-worthless records that was put into the 1960-64 birth index

What precisely did they do? (what is a birth index, etc). Please use terms like book, paper, etc. so we can understand. There is a lot of evidence for a piece of paper submitted in 1961 placed in a book with pertinent info on it (and possibly info we have never seen) that has been xeroxed, signed, sealed and sent out. Those certified copies unfortunately have not been viewed by anyone trustworthy, but there is ample evidence that they the certified copies exist.

60 posted on 01/16/2013 5:59:01 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

In January of 2011 Gov Abercrombie told his friend, Mike Evans, that there was no BC for Obama in Hawaii - after raising Evans’ curiosity by telling a Star-Advertiser columnist that his investigative team had found something in the archives “actually written down...”.

So it had to be after that. Based on the evidence/clues, my guess is shortly after Abercrombie and the AG’s office forced HDOH Director Neal Palafox to resign, and Loretta Fuddy got in there to do the hatchet work.

They had to give Obama the BC# that was used for the forged short-form. The supposed Factcheck photos were actually taken in at least 2 different sessions, with the date-stamp showing the photos being taken right before the last of 3 breaches to Obama’s passport file (after which the head of the company that ignored their security protocols in order to allow the 3 breaches was rewarded by being the National Security Director - John Brennan). That was in March of 2008.

You’re right. The statute doesn’t allow them to assign somebody else’s BC#. That is probably why Neal Palafox wouldn’t go along with the scheme and had to be gotten rid of. It’s also probably why Onaka told his people to make a deliberately bad “new birth certificate” for Obama - and had them put a certifying statement that had TXE instead of THE, and the smiley face added to his signature.

The law also allows this new BC to be created only for people who were BORN IN HAWAII. Because Obama has no legally valid BC, the HDOH cannot lawfully say that he was born in Hawaii, and this provision is not lawful for them to do. To create a totally false BC without alertng anyone to the fact that there isn’t any legally valid BC for the person at all would be document fraud - on the part of Fuddy, who ordered Onaka to have the BC created. Onaka has the legal responsibility and legal authority to make sure that no certified copy is issued for a BC that was acquired through fraud. That’s why Onaka added the items in the “Evidence for delayed filing or alterations” and stamped the BC with LATE and ALTERED after Fuddy had seen the copy made but before he slipped it into the envelope for Corley and sealed it. He had to make sure that the certified copy was known to be non-valid, since there is no legally valid BC for Obama.

And that’s why Obama’s people had to create a forgery - to get rid of the notations that revealed the non-validity of the record.

That’s what the evidence suggests to me. There’s more evidence too, but I think we’ve actually talked about this before, haven’t we?


61 posted on 01/16/2013 6:15:45 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: palmer

There was a handwritten birth index in 1961 but the HDOH claims that they destroyed that when they switched to computerized records. There was no change in the retention schedule and that handwritten index was required to be retained permanently so if they destroyed that list it was an illegal destruction.

Now what they have is a computer print-out. Easily manipulable. The pages are printed out from the computer and bound in a 2-prong printout binder. The pages are easily removed (a colleague watched them take a page out and put it back in before her very eyes). The other index books have the date range for the list at the top of every page. The 1960-64 birth index that the HDOH presents to the public now does not have a date range. Another colleague was accidentally given a different copy of the 1960-64 birth index - one that did not have Obama’s name listed in it.

The birth index that my colleague saw pages being taken out of did not have the name for Virginia Sunahara when she photographed the page. Shortly before that I had requested a non-certified short-form for Virginia and was told there was no birth record for her. Her BC# was apparently not under her name at that point. Whose name WAS it under?

Now the 1960-64 birth index includes the names of at least 2 people under their birth names rather than their adoptive names. There are no legally valid records under those names any more, and those records are legally required to be SEALED - unavailable for the public to know about. At least one other birth name is NOT included in the list so it wasn’t that they changed the parameters to include all birth names; they specifically added those 2 names from non-valid records. So the birth index is known to have been specifically altered by somebody within the HDOH to include names from non-valid records.


62 posted on 01/16/2013 6:29:22 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; palmer; Nero Germanicus

“That was in March of 2008.”

So the DOH gave Obama someone else’s BC number in 2008 (before he was elected) during Republican Governor Lingle’s Administration and when her appointed Health Director, Dr. Fukino was running the DOH.

So what law enforcement agency requested the new BC for then-Senator Obama and why?


63 posted on 01/16/2013 7:25:25 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

No, the HDOH gave Obama somebody else’s BC# sometime from Feb- - April of 2011. Until right before that Abercrombie was saying the only thing his investigators could find in HI was a notation in some archive.

Obama’s people were hoping not to have to draw the HDOH into any of this. They knew the person whose BC# they used for the short-form forgery would not come forward to reveal the theft. The HDOH didn’t have to be involved in BC# swapping at all, at first.

Then the HDOH had to mess with the index, to get Obama’s name in it.

But it wasn’t until the discrepancies with the BC#’s got scrutiny and the eligibility bills were being considered in the states - that’s when they knew they were going to have to change BC#’s around and get an actual BC for Obama at the HDOH. Dec of 2010 was when Abercrombie gave gung-ho interviews to the NYT and the LA Times, saying how he was going to come out with Obama’s long-form. That was preparation for the big unveiling of this soon-to-be-created BC. Early in January 2010 the assassination of Judge John Roll killed 2 birds with one stone: it got rid of the judge who might have had the integrity to uphold an AZ eligibility bill, and it gave an excuse to say the “birthers” would do violence to Obama if a long-form wasn’t created to cover Obama’s ineligibility. The stage was all set. Shortly after Judge Roll’s assassination somebody - probably Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano - made the request for the HDOH to create a false long-form for Obama in order to insure his “safety” from all the “radical Arizona birthers”.

But Onaka wouldn’t do it and Palafox wouldn’t force him to. So they had to get rid of Palafox. They got Fuddy in there and from then on, the rule of law has meant nothing.


64 posted on 01/16/2013 8:02:27 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“No, the HDOH gave Obama somebody else’s BC# sometime from Feb- - April of 2011.”

Do you mean 151-61-010641 or are you talking about a different number?


65 posted on 01/16/2013 8:39:59 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

10641, which is almost certainly the BC# that was originally given to either Stig Waidelich or Virginia Sunahara (depending on which of the 2 numbering methods is actually correct).


66 posted on 01/16/2013 8:49:53 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"""""That is probably why Neal Palafox wouldn’t go along with the scheme and had to be gotten rid of."""""

Interesting.... Has anyone like Mike Zullo or perhaps Jerome Corsi tried to contact this Mr. Neal Palafox? I would be curious to hear what he has to say.

67 posted on 01/17/2013 1:45:55 PM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Constitution 123

I would love to get him and Onaka in a room together and listen to what they would say (if they felt like they could).


68 posted on 01/17/2013 3:23:10 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Constitution 123

I would love to get him and Onaka in a room together and listen to what they would say (if they felt like they could).


69 posted on 01/17/2013 3:23:25 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Larry Klayman has filed an appeal in Alabama. You’ve been in contact with him. Could he request a certified verification from Dr. Onaka?

See if Dr. Onaka will verifiy the following:

Box 1a - Barack
Box 1b - Hussein
Box 1c - Obama, II
Box 2 – Male
Box 3 – single
Box 4 - no entry
Box 5a - August 4, 1961
Box 5b – 7:24 p.m.
Box 6a – Honolulu
Box 6b – Oahu
Box 6c – Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Box 6d – yes
Box 7a – Honolulu
Box 7b – Oahu
Box 7c – Honolulu, Hawaii
Box 7d – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway
Box 7e – yes
Box 7f – no entry/blank
Box 7g – no
Box 8 - Barack Hussein Obama
Box 9 – African
Box 10 - 25
Box 11 – Kenya, East Africa
Box 12a – Student
Box 12b – University
Box 13 - Stanley Ann Dunham
Box 14 – Caucasian
Box 15 – 18
Box 16 – Wichita, Kansas
Box 17a – None
Box 17b – no entry/blank
Box 18a - Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
Box 18b – 8-7-61
Box 19a – David A. Sinclair
Box 19b – 8-8-61
Box 20 – Aug-8 1961
Box 21 – V. K. Lee
Box 22 – Aug –8 1961
Box 23 – no entry/blank


70 posted on 01/18/2013 7:17:19 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Onaka was already asked to verify that those were the pieces of information in those boxes, when KS SOS Kris Kobach requested a verification that the information contained in the White House image is “identical to” the information in the original record.

Onaka already gave us the answer to that. He would not verify that it was identical.


71 posted on 01/18/2013 9:40:29 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

So are you saying that box 23 is blank?


72 posted on 01/18/2013 11:01:46 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Couldn’t Klayman ask why Dr. Onaka won’t say “identical”.


73 posted on 01/18/2013 11:23:14 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Box 23 is not blank on the real BC. That’s why the information is not “identical” even though the stuff that’s actually on the White House image matches what’s on the real BC.


74 posted on 01/19/2013 3:47:48 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

So if Klayman asked Dr. Onaka to verify each of the boxes and Dr. Onaka verified that box 23 was blank, won’t that mean the original BC was not altered? Even if Dr. Onaka doesn’t say they are identical.


75 posted on 01/19/2013 7:19:30 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

No, because we still know there’s some reason that Onaka couldn’t verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.

It could be that there is nothing in box 23 but there are LATE and ALTERED stamps, because it could be that the HDOH gave Obama this fake BC even though no evidence was ever offered to get Obama a complete BC before that. (Abercrombie did say to a Star-Bulletin columnist that his investigative team had found something “actually written down” in the archives. That doesn’t sound like there was ANY complete BC in the normal places a person would look - which was what caught Mike Evans’ attention, got him to call Abercrombie, and resulted in the on-air statements by Evans that Abercrombie had told him there’s no BC for Obama in Hawaii.)

It would be unlawful, but the folks at the HDOH office that are not in Onaka’s office have already been caught doing a bunch of unlawful stuff - including Fuddy, and she is the one with the authority to approve the creation of a falsified BC on law enforcement grounds. That would explain why Palafox was disposed of in the middle of all this dust-up over Abercrombie’s statements to Mike Evans - and replaced with Fuddy, who promptly instituted an unlawful policy refusing to allow people to see ALL the “contents” of their birth certificate, as required by HRS 338-13).

If Fuddy did that, it would be up to Onaka to make sure that no certified copy was issued for that BC which was obtained through (Fuddy’s) fraud. Given the circumstances, the best that Onaka could do may have been to put the LATE and ALTERED stamps on the BC so that even if the BC was certified it was not certified as VALID. And he could put red flags in his certifying elements so that even if Obama’s people C&P’ed them into a forgery (as they did), the red flags would still show - the TXE in the statement, and the smiley face in the signature. That smiley face in the signature is why Mike Zullo turned from thinking the skepticism was crazy and instead started seriously thinking that this could really be a forgery. The red flag did its job.

Like I said before, at this point another verification would only get Onaka to contradict himself at best, which is still reason to audit the records.

Sort of like the objector in KS being threatened into withdrawing the objection is supposed to be automatic grounds to keep the objection alive - AND to investigate who was making the threats and why. The threats strongly suggest that all is NOT well and needs further scrutiny. At least that’s my understanding, and it fits basic logic if we’re going to keep the mob from controlling everybody in the country.


76 posted on 01/19/2013 8:49:09 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

I should also add that if there is nothing in box 23 in the real BC, as I suggested as a possibility in my last comment, Onaka could still justify refusing to say that the “information contained in” the White House image is identical to the “information contained in” the real BC.... because he interpreted “information” to include all the substance (including LATE and ALTERED stamps) and not just the “items”.

If so, he could still say that the information that’s actually IN the White House image “matches”, because the LATE and ALTERED stamps aren’t in the White House image and thus weren’t being asked about until the question of “identical” came up. As long as he certified only that the information actually contained in the White House image matches, he wouldn’t be lying.


77 posted on 01/19/2013 8:55:44 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Onaka can’t give him reasons, and can’t even tell him that something can’t be verified; all Onaka can do is verify every submitted piece of information that he lawfully can.

That’s why the mocking here (and claims that I’m reading too much into things) is so off-target. The ONLY LAWFUL WAY for Onaka to show that a submitted fact is not true is by leaving it out of what he verifies as true. Those are the rules; he has to follow them. They are critical to understanding what his letter of verification means.

And that is why it is journalistic malpractice for TPM Muckraker to deliberately leave out the first of the 2 pages of Bennett’s request, and for AZ Central to show the letter of verification without also showing the rules that Onaka had to follow when responding to the request.

One of the first thoughts I had when I looked at page 2 of Bennett’s request, when it was published on TPM Muckraker, was “Where’s the other page that he alludes to?” To get page two, the “reporter” would have had to ask for the communications involved, and would have received BOTH pages. Why did he choose to leave out one of those pages, and why should anybody consider him a credible source since it was so easily seen that he had cherry-picked what he allowed the public to see?


78 posted on 01/19/2013 9:06:58 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I’m confused about what’s been verified?

On SoS Bennett’s verification the items from the request form are not specifically verified and I believe your position is that Dr. Onaka could not verify them. But when I suggested that Klayman request a verification of every box on the BC, you say that Dr. Onaka has already verified them when he said the pdf info matched the original info. So why didn’t he just list those items on Bennett’s verification? And why could he list them on Klayman’s hypothetical verification? Or would Dr. Onaka refuse to verifiy those items on Klayman’s?

BTW: “the TXE in the statement”

Why doesn’t the “TXE” show up on the AP copy? Zooming in it looks like “THE” with some of the ink missing from the stamp or not transferring to the paper.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf

,


79 posted on 01/19/2013 12:39:35 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

There are 2 things that “verified” can mean, as seen in these letters of verification:

1. Verification that a claim is on the record. This is all the MDEC attorneys asked for, and is totally irrelevant because the record itself could be non-valid.

2. Verification that a claim on the record is true. This is what Bennett asked for on the application and what he probably intended to ask for in his letter. But he used the words “from the record” (or something like that; I’m not looking at it right now), which would allow Onaka to interpret to mean he was asking for #1 above.

Onaka NEVER used language saying that any claims were true. The only thing he verified as true was the existence of the record.

If Klayman asked anything to be verified “from the record”, Onaka would interpret it as a #1-type request, and Onaka has already told us that where a field has “information” in the White House image, the record on file also has that same “information”. He can’t define for us what “information” means, so we don’t know if LATE or ALTERED stamps are “information”, or whether blank space is “information”

What he did tell us (by silence) is that the information contained in the White House image is not “identical to” the information in the record filed. The White House image is a forgery.

The TXE is very clear in the AP image. The lines are thicker there - at least twice the thickness of the T and H in other places on that stamp. If that was going to be because there was excess ink on the ink stamp pad, then it would make no sense for there to be too LITTLE ink in that same place.

Why do the hash marks only show up at the edge? Was this supposed to be a scan, a photocopy, or what? Ah, as I look I can see the border of the forged short-form showing through the back. This is apparently a PDF that the AP reporter made from the packet of photocopies that were handed out to the reporters at the press gaggle. We’re supposed to believe that the scanner or copier was set to a dark enough level that the border from a page stapled to the back of the scanned page would show up, but hash-marks on the page itself wouldn’t show up, except at the left side when taken from a supposedly flat BC (on security paper designed to help keep anything from bleeding through from a different piece of paper) lying flat on the scanner/copier. Yeah, right. /s


80 posted on 01/19/2013 8:41:24 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Klayman can take the pdf out of the equation. He can request Dr. Onaka to verify that the each of the boxes on the original BC are identical to the list of the following:

Box 1a - Barack
Box 1b - Hussein
Box 1c - Obama, II
Box 2 – Male
Box 3 – single
Box 4 - no entry
Box 5a - August 4, 1961
Box 5b – 7:24 p.m.
Box 6a – Honolulu
Box 6b – Oahu
Box 6c – Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Box 6d – yes
Box 7a – Honolulu
Box 7b – Oahu
Box 7c – Honolulu, Hawaii
Box 7d – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway
Box 7e – yes
Box 7f – no entry/blank
Box 7g – no
Box 8 - Barack Hussein Obama
Box 9 – African
Box 10 - 25
Box 11 – Kenya, East Africa
Box 12a – Student
Box 12b – University
Box 13 - Stanley Ann Dunham
Box 14 – Caucasian
Box 15 – 18
Box 16 – Wichita, Kansas
Box 17a – None
Box 17b – no entry/blank
Box 18a - Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
Box 18b – 8-7-61
Box 19a – David A. Sinclair
Box 19b – 8-8-61
Box 20 – Aug-8 1961
Box 21 – V. K. Lee
Box 22 – Aug –8 1961
Box 23 – no entry/blank

In addition can you verifiy that Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is not marked “altered” or “late”.


81 posted on 01/20/2013 11:19:46 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

They can only submit information to be verified. They can’t ask for the absence of information.

And what would be the point? As I’ve said, the very best that Onaka could do at this point would be to contradict himself - which would STILL be reason to see the original records and sort the whole thing out in a court of law. The most Obama can ever score, without submitting the record as evidence and having it sorted out in a court of law, is -1. Why shoot for -1, when the only way Obama can ever be considered eligible is if the record is submitted in a court of law and subject to all the Federal Rules of Evidence, which would allow all his vital and citizenship records to be audited?


82 posted on 01/20/2013 11:34:05 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“As I’ve said, the very best that Onaka could do at this point would be to contradict himself - which would STILL be reason to see the original records and sort the whole thing out in a court of law. “

Or he would be verifying what he has already said. It would on the other hand contradict your theory.

I’m surprised you don’t even want to try to get more information.


83 posted on 01/20/2013 6:19:08 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Onaka has given 3 consistent verifications already. The information we need now are the microfilms, computer transaction logs, and paper records for Obama’s birth certificate, social security number registration, draft registration, and passport files.

Anything short of that is just as likely to be a lie or deception as to be true. Why would Obama be unwilling to have any of those things shown? If there were legal doubts about my documentation I’d let law enforcement look at everything in any of those files for me at the blink of an eye.

In fact, law enforcement has already checked me out far better than Obama has ever been checked out, and that’s just because I reported Bob Bauer’s crimes. My credibility is far, far more important than the credibility of the guy who holds the nuclear football.

You didn’t know you were talking to somebody so important, did you?


84 posted on 01/20/2013 9:02:28 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan; butterdezillion

“...because the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.”

Judge England from a transcript of Grinols v Electoral College, 3 Jan 2013.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/120844360/Transcript-of-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-3-Jan-2013


85 posted on 01/22/2013 10:45:12 AM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson