“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?
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.
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.