Yeah...using TWO (2) sets of documents signed by Nancy Polosi and notarized as true.
Here they are...both with the same spelling mistake at the end of the second line.
Nancy caught out:
Posted on 09/22/2013 1:06:51 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.
This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
They will either side with the secy of state in Alabama OR they will say that the claimaints lack standing
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
FEDeral court will shoot that down.
The SC of Alabama has no standing to rule on the issue. Obama never lived in Alabama when he became old enough to register, to my knowledge.
This is an effort in futility by whomever brought the case.
If Obama is not legally qualified to occupy the White House are any Bills signed by him (eg Obamacare)valid?
Ok. So we finally get the answer as to whether the Secretary of State should have vetted the candidates. And then we’ll know if either or both Obama and Romney should have appeared on the Alabama ballot. And we can wait for the exciting news that Obama lost all 0 of the Alabama electoral votes he received. Which changes the national election by nothing.
Sorry... not holding my breath.
By the way, Alabama has been sitting on this for months. Whatever gave you the idea that they are any closer to a decision at this point???
Who, then, IS supposed to determine whether a Secretary of State properly performed her legally-required tasks?
Don’t hold your breath.
That article cries out for a good edit.
I also think the Court would have ruled prior that there was no standing shown.....and thrown it without a ruling out at that time.
Of course, that's my opinion, I don't wear a black robe, only a cuddly, fleecy one from Penney's when it's chilly, LOL.
Leni
I think it is the Federal Election Commission who receives the ‘application’ for one to run for the presidency.
After the election, the new House certifies the election.
In Obama’s case, the House has certified him [his electors] twice — January 2009 and January 2013.
He’s a homosexual. He’s a Marxist. He’s a Muslim. He’s a liar. He’s a fraud. He’s a criminal. He’s committed treason. He’s a murderer. A draft dodger? Who knows.......
If he really thinks that then Coach is going to be disappointed.
The suit is against the Alabama Secretary of State, not Obama.
All the FEC does is monitor campaign finance laws. They do not vet presidential candidates or their qualifications to run.
They leave it up to the political parties and media to vet candidates.
I can guaran-damn-tee you that if George W Bush were required under the law to register for Selective Service and did not do it, the media would have been investigating him for 8 straight years.
Imagine if it is discovered:
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
or any upcoming conservative politician, required to register, had not done so, how deep the anal probe the media would be on their career...cries of “special treatment” and “privileged class” would be screamed nightly from Brian Williams, Scott Pelley and Charles Gibson....and Chuck Schumer would be shoving down old ladies in the rush to get in front of a tv camera to express his hatred for the “Republican hypocrites”....
But hey, Obamugabe hasn’t registered with the Selective Service?
No one in the media cares.
Pretty much. The question before the Alabama Supreme Court is not whether Obama is qualified to be president but whether by law the Alabama Secretary of State was required to ensure that he was qualified. Even if he never registered for Selective Service that has no bearing on his qualification. It may be grounds for indictment and impeachment, but not qualifications for office.
The suit is not asking the Court per se to rule on whether Obama registered with Selective Service or not.
Of course, the courts are riddled with liberal judges who make up their own laws as they go along. We may have an outside chance in Alabama, however.
Of course, if the ruling goes against the Fraud-in-Chief then the case will go to the Supremes...who couldn't be counted on to give "standing" to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles in a religious case.
Leni
FEC only does money. And when questions arose regarding foreign campaign contributions for Obama the FEC refused to investigate because they said the winner gets to choose his battles. IOW, as long as it appears you’ve won you’ve got a free ticket. We have NOBODY looking out for whether laws and rules are being broken.
But it is the Secretary of State in each state which determines who can be on their ballot. Most states say that only eligible candidates can run for the office they seek.
In the case of AL SOS BEth Chapman, she received a certified-mail letter from Larry Klayman explaining that HI state registrar Alvin Onaka had been asked point-blank to verify Obama’s birth facts and would not, which means that those facts are not claimed on a legally-valid BC. Because Onaka did say that the facts requested to be verified WERE claimed on the record they have, the only reason to refuse to verify them is because the record they have is not legally valid. Without a legally valid record, there is no way that Antonio Villagairosa and Alice Travis Germond could LAWFULLY swear on the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination that Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the position of POTUS. Nobody can know that without first getting a judicial ruling on the probative value of that non-valid record, because without a probative record there are no legally-established birth facts.
IOW, Chapman was notified, in advance of the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot, that the HI state registrar had effectively confirmed that Obama has no legally-valid HI birth record so his eligibility could not be known without a legal investigation. She knew that the DNC OCON was fraudulent. A person who has that knowledge has a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY, by virtue of her oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, to raise the alarm - just as surely as if she knew a masked bandit was breaking into the White House to steal everything there. Failure to respond makes her an ACCOMPLICE to the crime.
The Congressional Research Service put out a paper to the members of Congress basically saying that it is up to the states to determine who goes on their ballot. If the AL Supreme Court rules that it is nobody’s business if the SOS ignores screaming red flags and legal challenges in order to place a likely-ineligible candidate on the ballot, then the system itself has said that the country has NO LEGAL PROTECTION against a usurper. None. There is NOBODY who can be required to safeguard the Constitution.
BEnghazi was terrible. A lie was knowingly passed off as an explanation so that nobody would/could investigate what really happened. We’d all like to know who knew what, and when. Well..... every SOS in this country had advance warning that a guy who has no legal documentation of eligibility was trying to enter our White House. If the courts say it is nobody’s business - ever - then they may as well go spit on the graves of the Benghazi victims too, because they’re saying NONE OF THIS - NOTHING THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO - is any of our business, and there is nothing we can do when they screw us all in full sight of everyone.
If this doesn’t matter, then nothing matters. It’s really that simple. If we have no way to MAKE our elected officials obey the laws and keep their oaths, then we may as well not have any laws or oaths. Period. Are you ready to go there?
Who, then, IS supposed to determine whether a Secretary of State properly performed her legally-required tasks?I am by no means a legal expert, but doesn't the Constitution specify that the presidential electors are ultimately responsible for determining the elected presidential ticket's candidates' eligibility status?
I would think each state could make their own preliminary determination to find a potential candidate ineligible to be included on their ballot, so that the candidate would then have to bring suit to the SCOTUS to try to force inclusion. I also think every registered voter in a state should automatically have fast track standing to challenge the eligibility of any candidate for whom they may vote (as long as an essentially identical suit had not already been brought). This should be the means by which a citizen should be able to challenge and correct a partisan or non-performing SoS.
The eligibility horse is long out of the barn, but for what it's worth, I believe aka obama to be a criminal identity fraud and an illegitimate, treasonous anti-American usurper who by rights should be arrested, tried and put to death for high treason per the rule of law (pardons should not apply in such cases). If this were to happen it would go a long way to restoring some much needed, righteous fear in the hearts of the rest of the mostly criminal pols infesting the beltway.
In hindsight, the founders made a big mistake in not writing strict term limits into the Constitution (which is why we have so many corrupt, cowardly enablers in DC).
Depends on WHY he didn’t register. If he didn’t register because he was still an Indonesian citizen as an adult, (just as he was as a child, as indicated by his school registration and his mother’s passport application), then he would have had to naturalize in order to even be a US citizen right now. And the legal question is whether one who is currently a NATURALIZED US citizen is eligible to be President.
Also, I don’t think a US citizen is eligible to be a federal employee of ANY kind if they haven’t registered with the Selective Service.
The courts have denied standing to state electors. It’s “not their business”.
According to the system, the only person who is harmed by an ineligible person on the ballot is the person who would have become President if the ineligible one hadn’t been on the ballot. Never mind that nobody can know that unless an election is actually conducted without them on the ballot...
It’s the “crystal ball” method of practicing law. In Iran and other sharia-controlled areas they call it “judge’s knowledge”. It’s just another way of saying rule by men, not by laws.
That’s really what is at stake with this issue and every other lawless act by this illegal regime. Until somebody actually rules that it IS our business when our government engages in criminal behavior, we are ruled by men, not by laws, and there are no guarantees of any kind.
I don’t think a US citizen is eligible to be a federal employee of ANY kind if they haven’t registered with the Selective Service.Clearly, by law, this applies to standard federal employees, but some have questioned whether elected federal politicians are technically included as employees. To me the answer (yes, of course) is as obvious as the paychecks they receive from the people they serve.
But I think we should take this further and restrict all voting and political office eligibility at the federal level to only those who have either properly registered for military service OR have actually honorably served in the military (yes, I do understand that this would presently disqualify most women from voting and running for elected office at the national level).
The trouble with that is that actually being in the military right now pretty much means that you have to either pledge to obey an enemy of the US (if you’re not an officer) or have to make an oath that you have no way of keeping (the officer’s oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic). I could not counsel my kids to join the military as it stands right now, because either of these realities would violate conscience. I feel for those who are stuck in the military right now, not having realized what it meant when they signed on. Those who sign on now are putting themselves in an impossible situation, and it’s got to leave huge scars on their conscience and on their honor. I hate having to say that, but it’s the way I see it right now.
I think it would be damaging if the only people from this generation who could vote are the ones who compromised their honor by either vowing obedience to a tyrant or making an oath they know they can never keep.
I love and respect our military people and I hate saying this stuff. I hate that the American voters allowed the vote to be close enough that a usurper could steal the White House and put our military people in such an impossible mess. There are no good answers for those who are in the military right now, and I hate it.
I agree. So does Mark Levin who explains how this can be fixed in his book The Liberty Amendments on page 19.
Laws are for the common folk.
Since our phones are trapped and emails read, and cameras are all around us, and laws only apply to the people, isn’t it about time that we admit we live in a tyranny.
The trouble with that is that actually being in the military right now pretty much means that you have to either pledge to obey an enemy of the US (if you’re not an officer) or have to make an oath that you have no way of keeping (the officer’s oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic).Your point is hard to argue with, but I guess I was making the implicit assumption that the present situation is the exception rather than the rule and that long term policy should not be based on a (hopefully) short term anomaly. My prior post's comments are based on a traditional, generally patriotic military that only suffers the occasional, unavoidable pockets of corruption and human weakness.
I’ve been mourning the loss of my country for a while now. We ARE living in tyranny.
HI state registrar Alvin Onaka had been asked point-blank to verify Obama’s birth facts and would not[.]
This is a peculiar assertion. The key birth fact and question as to eligibility (as everyone knows) is "Was BHO, II born in Hawaii?" (That is the key fact since the other two criteria for eligibility - being 35 years of age and having resided in the U.S. for 14 years - have never been at issue.). As to that key birth fact Dr. Onaka verifies point-blank."
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Now to most any reader that pretty much affirms in about as simple and direct fashion possible that per the HI vital records BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Assuming that Beth Chapman knew of this verification by Hawaii of the key birth fact, wouldn't that suffice for her to conclude Obama was eligible?
If it ousts Obama, ping me.
Until then, don’t hold your breath or you will be out long before Obama is.
It isn’t going to happen. The House certified the electors — twice. The House was the final authority.
Also, I don’t think a US citizen is eligible to be a federal employee of ANY kind if they haven’t registered with the Selective Service.
***************************
I joined the US Navy Air Reserve early in my Sr. year of HS, at age 17, with a contract that required me to go on active duty one year later. I became 18 about two months before active duty, but I still had to go to the local Selective Service Board. Showed them my Navy I.D. and was dismissed. Probably no registration for me on file now.
I later went through testing and FBI background checks (including interviews with my childhood neighbors) to become a US Customs agent and was selected, only to be shot down by Nixon cutting hiring of government personnel the night before I was to be sworn in. ...Later got a Top Secret clearance to work at a Defense contractor.
Not sure if all that makes sense, but my attempted point was to say that the SS registration may not be a big deal to many, although required by law.
BTW, Butterdezillion... I enjoy your postings which tend to present factual data rather than just snarky comments.
The word “indicating” only means that is what is claimed on the record. The only thing that Onaka actually VERIFIES there is the existence of a birth record which claims a Hawaii birth. That would be true even if the BC claiming it is not valid, so that verification statement says nothing about the validity of the record or the truth of those claims.
And when you look at Bennett’s entire request - including the actual APPLICATION FORM - you realize that the BC they have CAN’T be valid because if it was, Onaka would have had 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 and Barack Hussein Obama, since those are the facts requested to be verified
Any claim made on a legally valid record is legally presumed to be true and MUST be verified (certifying that is the way the event really happened) when a qualified requestor submits it for verification. Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY fact submitted on the application form.
Nor would he verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” Later, when KS SOS Kris Kobach specifically asked him to verify that the information contained in the White House image is IDENTICAL to the information contained in the record on file, Onaka would not verify that either. The INFORMATION on the White House image “matches” but is not identical.
All this was explained to Chapman. In fact, you can see the letter that Klayman sent to Chapman, at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf It shows the applicable statutes and documents.
When AZ SOS Bennett was asked why Onaka didn’t verify the birth date he said he assumed it was a mistake. He assumed that the certification he received was not accurate. He allowed Obama on the ballot based on the assumption that Onaka really MEANT to say something other than what he really said. He didn’t ask for clarification. Without any evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity (accuracy of the record given to him), he presumed that the certification he received was wrong.
Is that really how our legal system works in the USA? We ask point-blank and when the answer given under oath doesn’t match what we think it should be we assume - without evidence of any kind - that we know better than the custodian of the record, testifying under oath?
Is that how you think it should be? Do you want the AL Supreme Court to say that’s a fine way of doing legal business here in the USA?
I can see where it wouldn’t have to be a big deal for somebody who was already enlisted. You obviously weren’t trying to hide from the Selective Service requirement. Did the military cross-check with Selective Service and when it was seen that you weren’t registered you had to go before the board to make sure everything was cool?
BTW, thank you for your service. My brother-in-law was a Navy officer/pilot. Went into the reserves in order to finish out his 20 years after he didn’t make one of the later cuts and flew commercial instead. He spent last year in Bahrain. His son had the background check for a security clearance; my bet is they would not have allowed him anywhere near classified information - much less the nuclear football - if they had found him palling around with terrorists as an adult and forging vital records.
Yeah...using TWO (2) sets of documents signed by Nancy Polosi and notarized as true.
Here they are...both with the same spelling mistake at the end of the second line.
Nancy caught out:
This Alabama eligibility challenge is unique in that the plaintiffs are Republicans, the defendant is also a Republican and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court is a Republican. Barack Obama is not a party to this civil action.
The only input from Democrats in this appeal is an amicus brief submitted by the Alabama Democratic Party in support of the defendant, the Republican Secretary of State of Alabama.
However if the plaintiffs should prevail, the upside is that the Secretary of State in Alabama would then have to verify Obama’s eligibility but the downside is that Mitt Romney already won Alabama’s electoral votes.
To directly impact Obama, this process would need to be replicated in states that gave their electoral votes to Obama’s 332 electors total to take him down below the 270 elector threshold that is needed for election.
I’m going to give you a little more background also, so you realize there is more to my analysis. Before any of the SOS’s made requests for letters of verification I made a legal request from Janice Okubo for the forms that were used for fulfilling requests for verification. She told me that there weren’t any records responsive to my request because they don’t issue verifications any more; if somebody asks for a verification the HDOH just sends a COLB. Which is a bunch of hogwash because there are people who qualify for a verification who don’t qualify for a certified copy of a COLB. (Of course, according to the Administrative Rules in effect right now, ANYBODY qualifies to receive a NON-CERTIFIED copy of a COLB, but they don’t follow that, any more than they follow the rule allowing a person to get photocopies of even the confidential medical portion of their BC on request...)
So HDOH communications director Okubo lied to me in a legal response, trying to make me believe that they don’t issue letters of verification. Why?
A colleague’s communication with someone in authority at the vital records office in Hawaii filled in the blanks as to why Okubo lied to me: this worker said that a verification request that met all the legal requirements was being sent to the AG’s office so they could come up with an excuse to not issue a verification (of birth facts for somebody totally unrelated to the Obama issue) because if they issued ANY letters of verification it would cause people to wonder why THEY WILL NEVER ISSUE A VERIFICATION FOR OBAMA. This worker basically said flat-out that they cannot issue a verification for Obama’s birth facts, and the powers-that-be are lying and obfuscating in order to hide that fact. (Compare this with the runaround Bennett received just trying to get a verification, and all the hoops Deputy AG Nagamine was trying to get him to jump through so they wouldn’t have to issue anything. And when push came to shove, Onaka’s name stamp on the Bennett verification had someone else’s initials behind it and Bennett wouldn’t let them use his seal. Onaka distanced himself from this verification in every way possible. As it is, the verifications have the sort-of signature of Onaka but the RAISED seal of Fuddy which according to statute is only supposed to be used next to FUDDY’S signature. Everything about these verifications is fishy, leaving legal loopholes in case it is ever argued in court that Onaka actually DID verify Obama’s birth facts.)
Sort of like they illegally hid the Administrative Rules to hide the fact that anybody can get a non-certified COLB copy. Or why they CREATED the “2001 memo” (saying they would only issue short-form BC’s) on the DAY THAT OBAMA RELEASED HIS FORGED LONG-FORM. Or like they put a Territory of Hawaii heading on a certified “photocopy” of a STATE OF HAWAII death certificate for Virginia Sunahara. Or the way they altered the 1960-64 birth index so that it includes names from non-valid birth records. Or dozens of other illegal things the HDOH has done.
Just wanted you to know some of the background. None of this analysis is happening in a vacuum; there is a long history that informs my analysis, as well as the actual statutes and the request Bennett actually submitted, which was censored from the news reports.
Should have been “ And when push came to shove, Onaka’s name stamp on the Bennett verification had someone else’s initials behind it and ONAKA wouldn’t let them use his seal.”
Placemark.
Foreign students with a student visa attending a U.S. School are not required to register with Selective Service. If the Foreign Student became eligible to naturalize as a U.S. Citizen, the Foreign Student would have to register with Selective Service or obtain a waiver for not registering to become a U.S. Citizen. A Certificate of Naturalization would not be issued to foreigner who did not register with Selective Service or obtain a waiver from registration.
As a person born in 1961, if Obama did not register with Selective Service in 1980, then voters would have questioned his eligibility. Consequently, there is motive to forge a registration card. If Obama waited until he was 21 years old to register, then voters may demand a full explanation as to why he waited. If Obama obtained a waiver from registration, then voter may have question why he obtained a waiver. If it is established Obama did not register because he was a foreigner attending a U.S. School on a student visa in 1980, then his eligibility to be on the Alabama ballot would have been jeopardized.
You are confusing a fact witness (who testifies to the truth of a matter based on firsthand knowledge) with certification by a custodian of records. The latter obviously does not have information about the truth of the data contained in records that date back 50, 75 years, etc. But the custodian can and does verify what those records indicate about particular matters. That is what Dr. Onaka has done.
Sec. 338-14.3 speaks of "verification of the existence of a certficate." It doesn't purport to require the custodian to add language about "validity." I have no idea where you are getting this notion that Onaka was supposed to make a statement about validity. If a document in contained in the vital records, absent something to suggest to the custodian the document's bona fides are to be questioned, his task is to state what those records indicate. Onaka did that.
And when you look at Bennett’s entire request - including the actual APPLICATION FORM - you realize that the BC they have CAN’T be valid because if it was, Onaka would have had 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 and Barack Hussein Obama, since those are the facts requested to be verified
If the record weren't viewed as authentic or accurate, then Onaka couldn't have stated:
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
But state that he did. And he expressly verified the 10 items listed in SOS Bennet's letter. Again, how could Onaka verify these items if he didn't have a "valid" vital record stating such?
Your question seems to focus on information on the application form where Bennett wrote in"verification in lieu of certified copy." The obvious problem here is that Bennett wrote in items of information such as his name (Ken Bennett), his address, his phone number, his official status allowing him to make the request, etc. So when Bennett purports to request verification of "items in the attached form" are you suggesting Onaka was supposed to verify all items Bennett wrote on that form? That makes no sense.
Clearly, that form is designed to ask for information sufficient to identify the certificate for which a copy is requested. And Onaka verified the existence of a certificate. As to the information items you note, those were all contained on the White House LFBC, and Onaka verified that the information matched Hawaii's records.
So I fail to see any information requested by Bennett that wasn't effectively verified.
Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY fact submitted on the application form.
He verified such when he verified the information on the WH LFBC matched Hawaii's records.
Nor would he verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”
Since the White House image came from a copy printed onto security paper, and since the originals aren't on security paper, obviously Onaka couldn't give a verification as to "accurate image." The images necessarily are different.
But Onaka could and did verify as to the accuracy of the INFORMATION contained on the WH copy.
The INFORMATION on the White House image “matches” but is not identical.
Well, let's see if you have a point here.
Main Entry: identical
***
Definition: alike, equal
Synonyms: Xerox, carbon copy, corresponding, . . . double, duplicate, equivalent, exact, identic, indistinguishable, interchangeable, . . .look-alike, matching, . . . Source
So Kansas asks if they are "identical." Onaka says they "match." Given that "identical" and "matching" are synonymous terms Onaka verified the request.
Do you want the AL Supreme Court to say that’s a fine way of doing legal business here in the USA?
Whether imposing the duty on the Ala. SOS to undertake some sort of investigative process or hold some sort of administrative hearing is a good idea or not is a legislative, policy question. It's just not Alabama law as it existed at the time of the 2012 election. The SCOAL is not going to judicially impose that duty. Besides, Obama didn't win any electoral votes in AL. The appeal is pointless and moot.
Klayman will lose.
The problem is that the disclosure law in Hawaii says that registrar has to verify the facts “as stated by the applicant.” This means he can’t substitute other terms on an assumption some words are synonymous with others. In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact. And this is a fact that the state registrar has the authority to verify. It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record. There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy. Hawaii did NOT do this. They also failed to verify several specific facts contained on their own standard request form. The Kansas Secretary of State requested his own letter because the language in the Arizona and Mississippi letters were not compelling. He asked specifically if the copy was identical. Under the law in Hawaii, the registrar is supposed to verify that fact as stated by the applicant, not by using synonymous language or with a partial verification of facts. Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical. It may suggest that it might be identical, but it is NOT a verification that complies with the law “as stated by the applicant.”
You can offer the long recitation of many tangetial matters. I will again merely point out that when Hawaii states --
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
-- a long recitation that tries to pass off the conclusion that "Dr. Onaka refused to verify any birth facts" looks contrived (to state it most kindly). At a minimum, it can safely be said that he verfied the fact the Hawaii vital records reflect BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Right?
A colleague’s communication with someone in authority at the vital records office in Hawaii . . .
Here we have a double-hearsay statement that traces back to an anonymous source. Yeah, that's reliable.
this worker said . . . if they issued ANY letters of verification it would cause people to wonder why THEY WILL NEVER ISSUE A VERIFICATION FOR OBAMA.
That anonymous worker, supposing such person actually exists, has obviously been proven wrong in his/her prediction. Right?
[the] worker basically said flat-out that they cannot issue a verification for Obama’s birth facts,
And that worker was flat-out proven wrong when Dr. Onaka point-blank verified Obama's Hawaiian birth.
Onaka distanced himself from this verification in every way possible.
Like by allowing the verfication (plus two others) as to Obama's Hawaiian birth to issue under his name on his office letterhead? If that is "distancing" onseself, then what, pray tell, would "getting close" mean to you?
None of this analysis is happening in a vacuum; there is a long history that informs my analysis, as well as the actual statutes and the request Bennett actually submitted[.]
Dr. Onaka's verification of Obama's Hawaiian birth was sufficient for Bennett to conclude Obama was properly on the state ballot. That fact further informs my analysis, and given the Full, Faith & Credit clause of our Constitution, Bennett's decision was as expected.
Insofar as the SCOAL takes notice of any of this, it is but one more reason why Klayman will lose.
“1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Does the word indicating mean the same as proving or certifying?
The statute requires verification of facts. The statute does not bind the DOH Director to particular adjective modifiers the requester may use to describe those facts. You're reading into the statute something that isn't there.
In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact.
As I noted above, given the WH LFBC was produced from a copy printed onto security paper, it would not be correct to say it is a "true copy" (or "identical" to) an original that is on plain or other form of paper. There would be differences in appearance.
But the INFORMATION contained on the WH LFBC could be (and was) verified as accurate notwithstanding differences in appearance.
It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record.
When an actual document is requested by for official purposes, my understanding is that Hawaii issues the COLB. The attestation on Obama's states it is "a true copy of abstract of the record on file." I've not heard of an instance where Hawaii has issued a certified copy of the full LFBC.
There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy.
What? The custodian doesn't have to say the magic words "true and accurate representation" or "is identical to?" Words of like import (i.e., synonyms) are still legally sufficient under the F.R.E.? Go figure. Here I thought you were trying to claim otherwise.
Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical.
The actual wording used was "the information in the copy . . . matches the original record in our files." Onaka doesn't just say "some" information matches. He says "the information" -- which signifies that all information on the copy matches the original. "The information is identical" would carry the same import.
Trying to claim there's some meaningful semantic distinction between "matches" and "is identical" is silly.
transitive verb *ˈin-də-ˌkāt *
: to show (something) : to show that (something) exists or is true
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indicate
I suppose Dr. Onaka could just as easily have said,
“1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health showing that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
But he chose to use the synonym "indicating" instead.
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.