Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
Thanks for the ping!
Thank you (it was actually at post 38).
Ok lets try this:
Why did Onaka refuse to respond to the standard HI form requesting verification of Obama’s birth facts as sent in by the SOS of AZ?
For the record:
The AZ SOS was entitled to make the standard request, and receive an official response from HI.
Onaka made AZ withdraw the standard HI form request, and submit a unique lesser request that allowed Onaka to give his legalese non-response.
Legally valid means that the document has evidentiary value.
I cannot find the phrase "legally valid" in any dictionary, but the word "valid" is defined as follows:
It seems to me that by definition the statute explicitly mandates that the verification (provided by Onaka) "shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant." "Shall" is mandatory. It is a command.Multiple Entries:
valid
Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
valid/ˈvalɪd/
▶adjective
- 1 actually supporting the intended point or claim: a valid criticism.
- 2 executed in compliance with the law.
■ legally or officially acceptable.
It seems to me that the verification provided was executed in compliance with the law (even though it does not meet your own criteria of an itemized list) it therefore would have probative/evidentiary value.
In short, I do not yet agree with your interpretation of the statute. The notion that the only reason that HRS 338-14.3 allows Onaka 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 is far-fetched, imo. Again, by definition the verification itself "...shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."
"All purposes" would seem to me to include "evidentiary value" as well as constituting what is legally or officially acceptable.
For what it's worth, Obama sent a team of lawyers to HI for some reason back then, and while I can't prove it, I think it probably for the purpose of "amending" and "straightening out" some of these phony biographical details of his life.
Cordially,
When Klayman was at Judicial Watch, they talked a lot, solicited donations, got a deposition, solicited donations, promised future prosecution, solicited donations, and talked some more. The closest Klayman ever got to a result, besides suing his Mom, was against the Cheney energy task force.
OTOH, Judicial Watch, post Klayman, has been a pitbull when it comes to effective FOIA requests, as well as practicing activist law...
Judicial Watch and True the Vote Sue Ohio to Force Clean Up of Voting Rolls
Judicial Watch Sues DOJ and DHS for Records about Legal Basis of Obama’s New “Amnesty” Program
JW Disclosure Spurs Controversy at NY TIMES (NY Times article)
The Atlantic Wire - CIA Emails Reveal Winners and Losers of National Security Access
Klayman is a hacktivist lawyer just trying to get some birther paypal cash.
*
Ping to # 98.
Thanks, bluecat6.
See?! I KNEW I wasn’t hallucinating when I said I saw an announcement about that.
And since I will not be able to attend, I pray that there is video available of the entire thing. Surely at some point some of these many sparks Sheriff Arpaio has been striking are going to catch fire and start a roaring conflagration under Zero’s butt.
This of course, will make us all feel better. Thanks Larry!
Right, the problem is that the HI DOH says clearly on its own website that the form Bennett submitted is the ONLY thing that's needed to request a letter of verification, yet Onaka refused to specifically verify that information, despite the law that requires hims to verify such information when legally requested.
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
link
Whatever information was submitted on the "same request" form used to order a certified copy of a birth certificate should have been verified. In one sense, this would be saying that Onaka's failure to verify the information in that form means it is information that is unknown ... thus, Obama does NOT have a legally valid birth certificate on file.
When either an adoption or an unadoption takes place, the result is that one or the other of two birth certificates is considered legally valid and the other is non-valid and sealed. The verification would be based on whichever one is valid at the time. So when an adoption occurs it isn’t considered an amendment; a new birth certificate is created and none of the changes because of the adoption are noted as amendments.
Ping.
The vice tightens???
Thanks Nully.
Very interesting indeed.
Any chance the MSM might cover this story? ( Sarc.)
“True and accurate representation” has nothing to do with whether it was a crappy photocopy. The issue is whether it accurately represents everything that is conveyed in the original document. This is standard legal language. Onaka would not verify that the image was an accurate representation of the original record.
To understand the “legally non-valid” part you have to know a little bit about evidentiary/probative value. There are varying levels of legitimacy for records. For instance, in Hawaii parents can add a child’s name within the first 6 months and it’s no big deal - doesn’t affect the legal validity of the record, because that’s an understandable thing. When people start making MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS - changing the vital story of the birth: gender, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s name, father’s name... then HI says, “Whoa. You didn’t know where the birth happened when you filed this thing?” That kind of amendment raises red flags. Incomplete information raises a red flag. If you claim a Kapiolani birth but don’t have a doctor’s signature until somebody files an affidavit 45 years later.... that’s fishy.
The State of Hawaii says that birth certificates that are classified as “late” (that is, the BC is completed a year or more after the birth) have no probative value of their own. Hawaii doesn’t vouch for anything on those. If somebody wants to make the case that those facts are true they are welcome to do so, and if they can convince a judicial or administrative person or body that the claims on the BC are accurate, then more power to them - but the State of Hawaii doesn’t vouch for any of those facts being true.
Same thing with BC’s that are classified as “altered”. Those are alterations that are so significant that even Hawaii is not gullible enough to automatically accept those claims as true. Major administrative amendments, which call into question how somebody could mistake the wrong information for something so basic when they filled out the BC in the first place.
So when Onaka is told (by HRS 338-14.3) that he has to verify whatever is submitted - but that verifying means he is certifying the truth of the claims.... that means that he cannot verify anything from one of these BC’s that Hawaii won’t vouch for. That’s what “non-valid” means. It means there are discrepancies so wide that the BC isn’t considered credible by the government - though a person is welcome to try to convince a judge or administrator otherwise, which is why they store the record and have it available.
That is why I cited HRS 338-17, which says that a late or altered BC’s probative value is determined when presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Until that time it has NO VALUE. It is non-valid.
Contrast that with the normal standard, which is “prima facie”. HI says that as long as a BC is completed within the first 30 days after birth, that is considered solid enough evidence that a case could be made for the claim’s accuracy. It is prima facie evidence. Unless there is strong evidence brought up against those claims, it is legally assumed that they are true. It is legally VALID.
When Onaka is asked to verify birth claims and those claims are found on a legally valid record he HAS to verify that those facts are true.
So - when you realize the difference between probative/valid and non-probative/non-valid - you can easily see that since the claims Bennett submitted ARE found on the document they have but Onaka would not verify those facts as true (certifying that the event actually happened that way), that tells us immediately that Onaka was looking at a legally non-valid record.
He can verify that something is ON that record regardless of whether the record is valid or not (which is all he did in that verification), but he cannot verify anything as true if it’s non-valid and he HAS to verify it as true if it’s valid. It’s one or the other. Onaka verified what was ON the record but would not verify the truth of anything on that record. A non-valid record.
every word you just typed was exampled by Mike Zullo in the back from Hawaii presser
Actually, Janice Okubo indirectly confirmed that the BC was amended when she disclosed that there were receipts for money paid to amend Obama’s BC.
And the former OIP Director indirectly confirmed that there are affidavits to support the claims on the birth certificate, by denying “Terri K” access to those affidavits. And BTW, affidavits filed in support of claims are not necessary for hospital births, AND they have to be listed on the birth certificate, so that is one way that the “information” on the White House BC could match the “information” in the record and the White House BC still not be a “true and accurate representation of the original” - because the original has ADDITIONAL information about affidavits filed, amendments or late filings made, etc.
This disclosure by Onaka - of a legally non-valid record - is supported by other disclosures from HI bureaucrats. Including HI Gov Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama’s, who told Mike Evans (another friend) that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii. Evans does Hollywood gossip blurbs on radio shows, and he went on radio and told about his conversation with Abercrombie, where Abercrombie was flabbergasted that he couldn’t find any proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. A day or two later Evans claimed he hadn’t said he had talked to Abercrombie, but the recordings clearly show he did claim that.
So Obamas original record could be a non-valid and sealed record.
Playing games to find out who governs us is simply un-american. I really wish someone in HDOH would start leaking documents. Honestly, people need to go to jail for this.
No posting history
What needs to have probative value is the birth record itself. That is what is either valid or non-valid.
A letter of verification contains different things that are verified. Every letter of verification has to verify that a record exists. Beyond that the specific thing that is or isn’t verified depends on what was submitted for verification. By verifying that a birth certificate exists that is a verification and it certifies the truth of what is verified. But Onaka could issue a verification of the existence of a birth record without verifying anything on the record as true. You have to pay attention to what is actually STATED, in order to know what is being verified.
For instance, if Onaka said, “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”, then he would be verifying that the event happened as described by Ken Bennett.
He never said that.
The certifying statement at the bottom talks about Onaka using the actual record to verify the birth facts. That statement is there on verifications even when no birth facts are verified. For instance, the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee asked and received a verification of only two things - neither of which is a birth fact: the existence of a record, and that the information on the White House BC matches the information on the original record on file. No birth facts were verified in that verification, and yet it has that certifying statement by Onaka’s signature saying that the original record was used to verify the birth facts. That statement doesn’t mean that any birth facts necessarily WERE verified. It just means that IF birth facts were verified, they were done so by checking the original record.
Onaka checked the original record for Obama’s gender, date of birth, etc, but even though the record claimed Obama is a male born on Aug 4, 1961, Onaka would not verify the truth of either of those things. If he could certify that those things are really true, he HAD to verify those things.
Why didn’t he verify those things then?
Did the communication problem get solved?
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.