Obama lawyer warned against certifying eligibility

wnd.com ^

[butterdezillion]

Yes, it did - much to my relief. Thank you for your help.

[dinodino]

That’s a possible interpretation of events. Yes, there is smoke there. However, my point is you’ll never find the fire this way if Onaka is covering Mr. O’s butt. You can parse words and make inferences from omissions or errors commited by the Hawaiian DOH all day long, but you’ll still never get to see the source documents as long as they are controlled by parties sympathetic to the Administration’s cause.

Tons of smoke surrounds the topic of Mr. Obama’s nativity, but butterdezillion’s analysis depends on the HI DOH executing their functions in a perfect fashion and in 100%, exact compliance with HI statute. I am not willing to give them that much credit. One misstated answer by the DOH could send researchers on a wild goose chase.

Does that make sense? I’m not defending Mr. O, and the Dystel biographies to me are the strongest evidence yet that Mr. O has been lying about his history.

[edge919]

Yes, it’s obvious that Hawaii is covering for “Mr. O’s” butt. They made Bennett jump through a lot of hoops that he shouldn’t haven had to jump through, and he’s a legitimate government official. Butter is right though when she points out that there are statutory requirements for how Hawaii is supposed to handle requests. Their refusals and parsing is very illuminating. There should be no reason for Hawaii to behave as they have. There are statutory ways they could simply provide full disclosure directly to the public and not fool around. Instead of nitpicking at butter or any other skeptics, we should collectively put more pressure on Hawaii to provide full disclosures of the Kenyan Coward™’s records.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening. Hope you are doing well.

No posting history

They do have a posting history on FR. Must be in the archives. Larry Klayman was the head of JW at the time.

Don't know why you can't pull it up, unless Klayman posted under a nom de plum. I remember the articles during the clinton admin.

5.56mm

[MileHi]

I'm good, hope you are as well.

Perhaps the last post was before the latest revision of FR, which would have been some time ago.

FReegards

[dinodino]

I agree with you—something is wrong, and there’s too much smoke for there to be no fire. I just am pessimistic that any amount of grassroots pressure can result in disclosure from the Hawaiian DOH.

[COUNTrecount]

Bookmark

[American Constitutionalist]

" What a person does not say is every bit as important as what they do say - especially when they are required by law to verify whatever can legally be verified. The legal difference between saying or not saying that a claim is verified as true... is the whole point of doing the verification. "

Would that be the same as when someone put's their hand on the Bible and takes a oath in court and swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth ?

How about when in either a criminal hearing or civil hearing the judge order's the defendant to give over any information, or is subpenaed to do so ?
and if they refuse to do so they can be held contempt of court.

Of course Judges know that good layers know the ins and outs of the legal system and can say one thing but yet meaning another.

But if they are required by a law to verify that someone's records are what is on the record, then yes, what he does not say also holds weight.

[American Constitutionalist]

The problem is ?
Both COLB that the Obama campaign and Obama himself put out for the public to see have been both proven to be frauds.

So ? they stonewalled for what ? 3 4 years with the first COLB saying, yeah, yeah, you birthers, it's real... but low and behold ? they had to come up with a new ( but really fake ) COLB ?
So ? why ? if the first one was real, authentic ? why come up with a new and improved fake one ?

The last COLB that Mr. Obama posted on the White house website was " Proven " to be a fake and a fraud. Sheriff Joe ( a real law enforcement official ) took months to investigate this and is still investigating this.. so ? who's word are you going to take ?

Sheriff Joe's ?

or Mr. Obama ?


It's a really easy question to answer ? isn't it ?

I take a real law enforcement officer's word for it.

[American Constitutionalist]

---- " What a person does not say is every bit as important as what they do say ---- "

Especially in a court of law.

What happens to someone when a judge asks a question to someone to answer and they refuse to answer it before a judge ?

[American Constitutionalist]

Pardon me if I am not correct, but in 2008, all the certification letters, forms that were sent to all 49 states were all the same except Hawaii's.
Hawaii's was a little different.
They left our the part where it was suppose to say " Constitutionally eligible " . The Democratic Party of Hawaii chair refused to certify Obama that year, but old Nancy Pelosi signed the documents anyway.
If anything that is fishy is going on, that, is that.

[American Constitutionalist]

Pardon me if I am not correct, but in 2008, all the certification letters, forms that were sent to all 49 states were all the same except Hawaii's.
Hawaii's was a little different.
They left out the part where it was suppose to say " Constitutionally eligible " . The Democratic Party of Hawaii chair refused to certify Obama that year, but old Nancy Pelosi signed the documents anyway.
If anything that is fishy is going on, that, is that.

[American Constitutionalist]

“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."

Just because the stated facts that are on the " Original " record on file still does not make it legally valid.
Even if ? someone can claim that it's a " true and accurate representation of the original " does not still make the " original " legally valid.

What Butter is trying to say is ?
That Onaka can not legally validate what is actually on the " original " Kenyan birth record.
All he can validate is that the record is there at the Hawaii Department of Records.

I was wondering ?

Has anyone compared the letter type on the supposed Kenyan Birth Certificate to the new and improved COLB ? I wonder if it matches up ?

[American Constitutionalist]

" What needs to have probative value is the birth record itself. "

It would have probate value IF ? it was brought before a court as " evidence " in a attempt in a discovery trial ? right ? : )

[American Constitutionalist]

However ? even though Mr. Bennett was put through those hoops, did he get resolved what he was suppose to resolve ? or is it still up in the air ?

[American Constitutionalist]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2926501/posts

[American Constitutionalist]

FACTCHECK ,,, those were the original people who brought us the first original supposed " Authentic " COLB .....



2008 Free Republic link:

FactCheck.Org's Obama Birth Certificate is dated March 2008

If you have read that link I sent to you, you can understand why people would not believe these guys.

Here are the people who was to have supposed to have examined Obama's COLB back during the election campaign of 2008.

[Diamond]

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.

Yes. That is correct.

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.

You're making an argument from silence. The statute does not require him to verify the events in the manner that you would prefer to have it.

The certifying statement at the bottom talks about Onaka using the actual record to verify the birth facts.

Yes. That is correct. And significant to the point of being dispositive of the issue, in the legal sense, that is.

That statement is there on verifications even when no birth facts are verified.

I am without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about that assertion, but I'll take your word for it. It is not really germane to the substance at issue. Items are contained in gazillions of bureaucratic forms that do not apply to every usage of a form. Forms are often multipurpose in nature.

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?

He did verify them, as dinodino pointed out to you back in post 90:

Bennett asked DOH to explicitly verify twelve items (request letter dated March 30), in addition to what he listed on his verification request. Onaka responded with a page verifying the twelve items Bennett requested, and the statement, “...I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.” Onaka included the wording, “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”

Thank you dinodino. Now back to me. Note that Onaka refers to the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request". Obama’s birth date, gender, city or island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name - all the things that were on the application for a verification constitute an information match, and thus by definition in the statute, 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."

You yourself are tacitly acknowledge some of the information content referred to by Onaka by stating, "but even though the record claimed Obama is a male born on Aug 4, 1961,"

It does not matter whether or not the verification was done in the form that you would prefer. Onaka's verification itself, by statutory definition, certified that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

Therefore the premise of your persistent question, namely; that Onaka did not verify the facts of the event, is incorrect, in the legal sense, in my opinion.

Cordially,

[American Constitutionalist]

" 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." ...

Yes, but, where ?

The applicant could have easily back in 1961 falsify this stated event stated on the application and those at the Hawaii Department of Health could have said:

" ok, we take your word for it, so sign here and pay $ 5.00 and you will get a Hawaii BC in a few weeks by mail. "

Does not make it " LEGAL ".

How about false IDs and false drivers license by Illegals given to them by some states ? does it make it legal ?


How come ?
This so called birth " Event " that was suppose to have happen on Aug,4,1961 in Hawaii conflict with reports that there are records that are in the British National Archives state that he was born in Kenya ?


Could it be possible that ?
Someone ( could have ) fudged the records ?
Made false statements to the Hawaii Department of Health back in 1961 ?
( in which case could have been much easier to lie about back in 1961.)

Even though Onaka can validate that what is on the COLB is the ( " same as " ) what is on those records does not make those " records " valid or legal.

There is a difference between saying that what is on the COLB and what is on those records is " the same as " than ?
Validating that the actual records are legal, or valid.
I think that's the point Butterzillion is trying to make here.

But, what he could not say is ?

Can he validate ?
Certify ?

That he was actually born in Hawaii ?

Where is the certification/validation of the actual birth event ?
Someone's word for it ?

The records have been: amended, a late filing.

Amended ? a late filing ?

Where it gives it a much greater chance that the records could have been changed ? fudged ?
and or ?
False statements could have been given at the time of the application ?

[noinfringers2]

Just being born in the USA means the children of the new President of Egypt would be eligible for POTUSA. Where do you think their allegiance would be? The Founders were way ahead of the times.