Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: toldyou

What needs to be said (but nobody in the “mainstream” will) is that the HI state registrar has confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Obama’s HI birth certificate is not legally valid and that the White House image is a forgery to hide that fact.

Here’s a post with links: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2958094/posts?page=173#173

Here’s the short summary:

Hawaii statute requires the registrar to verify whatever a qualified requestor submits, if the registrar can certify that it’s the way the birth really happened. If they have a legally-valid record, Hawaii vouches for the accuracy of the claims, and it’s up to the challenger to prove that the claims AREN’T true.

IOW, if there’s a legally valid record the “call on the field” from the State of Hawaii is that the claims are true. Those claims can be legally challenged by a review of the instant replay, but unless there is enough evidence to overturn the call on the field, that call stands.

Onaka would not verify any of the birth facts that Ken Bennett submitted. He confirmed that the facts submitted “matched” what they have on their record, so the only reason to not verify/certify them is if the record they have is not legally valid; Hawaii will not vouch for (certify) the truth of those claims because the record itself is legally suspicious (non-valid).

IOW, the call on the field is that the claims are NOT true. Anybody who wants to LAWFULLY/LEGALLY say that Obama WAS born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama has to show from the instant replay evidence enough to OVERTURN the call on the field.

This changes everything. Until now it was legally presumed that Hawaii had been straightforward (not deceptive) in their statements and communications, and that Obama’s affidavits swearing eligibility were non-perjurious. But now Onaka has clarified that the record they’ve been talking about all this time is, in fact, non-valid and there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama based on a Hawaii record. Nowhere did any of the HI officials’ statements say that they have a LEGALLY-VALID record for Obama. And I’ve proven on my blog that the 1960-64 birth index was altered to include names from legally non-valid records, so a name in that birth index says nothing about the legal validity of the record either.

So now we’ve got the official call on the field from the HI state registrar. It is legally presumed that the birth facts alleged on Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate are NOT true/proven, unless he can present to a judicial or administrative person or body (which are bound by the federal rules of evidence...) legal evidence to overcome that call on the field.


21 posted on 11/14/2012 8:52:38 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion
But now Onaka has clarified that the record they’ve been talking about all this time is, in fact, non-valid and there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama based on a Hawaii record. Nowhere did any of the HI officials’ statements say that they have a LEGALLY-VALID record for Obama

When did this happened? November 7th?

37 posted on 11/14/2012 10:28:50 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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