Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
'For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself'
A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.
The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.
In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.
“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Tea Party Patriots Event 9/22/12
http://celebritytheatre.ticketforce.com/eventperformances.asp?evt=1350
A Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots Event
Sheriff Joe and his call for Congressional investigation of fraudulent documents.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Program: 11:00 am - 1:30 pm
Doors open 10:00 am
Featured Guests/Speakers:
Pat Boone
LTC Terry Lakin
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Ticket Prices:
Rows 1-5 = $25 - includes post reception
General Admission = $10
Prices increase $5 day of show
Tickets purchased less than 10 days prior to show will be Will Call.
Seating is in the Round
Celebrity Theatre does not endorse any political party. The views and opinions of this event do not state or reflect those of the Celebrity Theatre, its partners or sponsors.
Featured Guests/Speakers:
Pat Boone
LTC Terry Lakin
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
This should be sent to Ken Cuccinelli, AG, VA and Kris Kobach, Secretary of State Kansas. They are real conservatives who will take whatever action is warranted.
Onaka said nothing about Obama’s gender, date of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name. Those were right on the application form - which is clearly a request for Onaka to verify that those are the true facts surrounding the birth. In the context where he HAD to verify that the facts were true (as opposed to simply being CLAIMED on a record), he verified nothing.
He mentioned Honolulu but only in the context of that being a claim on the birth certificate. He never, at any time, said that anything on that verification was verified as a true fact.
He was specifically asked to verify those things, by name. If he doesn’t specifically say that he verifies a birth fact, then he isn’t verifying that birth fact. That’s the mechanism whereby a person knows whether the fact they cited is really a true fact. Onaka did not verify any of those facts. Don’t get distracted by him verifying what is on the birth record; if the birth record isn’t legally valid that makes absolutely no difference. The substance is what he was asked to verify AS TRUE - and he would not verify ANY of those facts as TRUE.
HRS 338-14.3 uses the words “shall issue a verification”. The key legal word is “shall”. That’s mandatory. According to HRS 338-14.3 when is it legally acceptable for Onaka to NOT verify a fact pertaining to the vital event related to the certificate?
Don’t get distracted by side-shows. Onaka could have verified that the BC says the moon is made of good green cheese, and it would still be nothing more than a CLAIM, if the BC is not legally valid. Same with every other thing that Onaka merely verifies as being a CLAIM on the record. Claims don’t matter; truth matters. An Onaka would not verify ANY of those facts as true.
Thanks for the link! :-D
First, thank you for the link. That article is much clearer than this one.
I am not an attorney, but I respectfully disagree with your legal conclusion that Alvin Onaka confirmed to Ken Bennett that Hawaii does not have a legally-valid birth record for Obama.
My knowledge of HI law is woefully incomplete, to say the least, That having been admitted, though, when I read the statute re verification of the facts of the birth by the Director of Health, it seems to me that Onaka did comply with the statute as worded, although it took two requests from Ken Bennett to get him to do so.
I am having trouble following Klayman's legal analysis. Maybe I'm missing something, but there is nothing in the statute that I see that requires the Director of Health to verify anything about a birth record being "legally-valid".
I'm not saying I believe him, but Onaka did (a) verify the existence of a certificate, and (b) certified that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant. From the article:
"HI State Registrar Alvin Onaka sent back a letter (Exhibit C) verifying that they have a birth certificate for Obama, but the lights didn’t go off for any of those birth facts Bennett guessed on the application. In an attached additional request (Exhibit B) Bennett asked Onaka to verify that an attached copy of Obama’s posted long-form was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. Onaka wouldn’t verify that either but did verify that the birth facts claimed on the posted long-form matched the birth facts claimed on the original record at the HDOH."
[emphasis mine]
And in the second place, how would it even be possible for any Director of Health to verify that a printed copy of an image from the internet that was mailed to him was "legally valid"? How could he even certify it as a true copy?
I know that here in MIssouri that if I asked the Dept of Vital Records to verify that a copy that I sent to them was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file, they wouldn't certify it or authenticate it, and rightly so. They would be crazy to do so.
Cordially,
Not quite correct. Onaka *did* verify that the facts on the copy match what is in their records. The only thing I see up for discussion is whether the COLB Bennett attached is a true and correct copy, per Onaka.
Onaka’s copy of the BC could easily have a stamp on it that says “VOID.” That circumstance would fit all the facts.
and you are wrong....the problem with Hawaii signin off was the BC was amended in Hawaii....the PDF the White hut used was NOT sent by Hawaii....cause it WAS AMENDED
Who said the BC was amended? Please cite your source.
All I am saying is that my plain reading of Onaka’s response doesn’t necessarily support butterdezillion’s assertions.
For the record, I believe that Obama has lied about his birth circumstances for a long time. Whether he was born in Hawaii and lied and said he was born in Kenya, or it’s the reverse, I don’t know. We need either a Congressional investigation, or an honest Woodward and Bernstein to step up to the plate and seek out the truth.
Yes, it certainly could.
you half ass your memories...watch the presser about the Hawaii trip again and this time,pay attention to Mike
Yes, I watched it. Where did the Hawaii DOH verify that the birth certificate was amended?
Legally valid means that the document has evidentiary value. A late or altered BC has no evidentiary value so it is the equivalent of a rumor. Onaka cannot verify that a rumor is true. A verification is certification that the event did happen as described. He can’t certify that the birth happened the way it is stated on a late or altered BC because that BC has no evidentiary/probative value.
The fact of the matter is that he would not verify Obama’s birth date, gender, city or island of birt, mother’s name, or father’s name - all the things that were on the application for a verification (IOW, where it was clear that he was asking for the TRUE FACTS, and not simply what is claimed on a document). The only reason that HRS 338-14.3 allows him to not verify facts submitted is if he cannot certify that the event really happened that way, and that would be the case if the record that the claims are on have no probative/evidentiary value.
I’m at work so I can’t take very long here. But the part where HRS 338-14.3 says that a verification is certification that the event happened as described is what brings in the legal validity of the record. Non-valid records have no probative value and the State of Hawaii cannot vouch that the claims on them are true. Onaka cannot verify the facts from any non-valid record. He can only verify that the record exists and that this or that is CLAIMED on the BC - which is exactly what he did, and ONLY what he did. And that is the proof of the record’s non-validity, because if the record was valid he would have to verify EVERYTHING that was submitted.
Does that make sense now?
October surprise?
Are you suggesting an LBJ “I won’t be seeking the nomination of my party”. It will be too late, they’re holding the nominating convention now. The only other reason to not continue is ill health, in which case the intellect of the democratic party can carry the torch of Hope and Change Part Deux.
But it doesn’t matter if the White House BC matches what is on their legally non-valid record. It’s still non-valid. It still has no probative/evidentiary value until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body an the probative value is determined according to evidentiary standards.
A counterfeit matching Monopoly money still isn’t worth anything. If the record they have had probative value, Onaka would have verified that the gender, date of birth, etc were TRUE. He wouldn’t do that, and the only reason to not verify facts upon request is if he can’t certify that the event really happened that way.
It seems your analysis is SOP for most states.
So, for an SOS to legaly clear Obama, it seems they must first have access to all that Hawaii has.
Then make the call, thumbs up or thumbs down. They can still allow him to run, but must see all his records to make a legal declaration of fact.
Maybe amendments are the biggets problem. Adopted by Indonesian citizen, and new name. Barry Soetoro. Then changed back again. Fathers name amended.
So the certifcate data it seems is a “moving target” over time, verification being impossible without a full trail of amendments that have occured since intial creation, August of 1961.
The day after he gets nominated, law suits start to fly again?
Would verification problems be common for an adopted person? Or is this unusual?
You’re trapped in a legalese language parsing black hole from which there is no escape. Resistance is futile.
You are completely missing my point. Where, exactly, are you getting the “legally non-valid record” thing from? It doesn’t appear in Onaka’s response.
I believe that you think that Onaka’s refusal to describe the attached image of COLB as a true and correct copy means that it doesn’t match what’s in Hawaii’s records. I am trying to point out to you that, if someone sends Onaka a crappy printout of a jpeg of the Internet, that does not constitute a “true and correct copy.”
I believe that Obama is lying about his birth. I also believe that Hawaii have records which match the COLB put forth by the White House. I do not think that parsing and mincing the Hawaii DOH’s words is going to bear fruit.
The facts are not going to go away regarding the usurpers origins. But likewise, the truth will be shielded from exposure to the huddled masses.
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.