Skip to comments.Hawaii's Non-Certification
Posted on 05/24/2012 8:20:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion
What the Hawaii AG forced Bennett to do to his request for verification:
1. Withdraw the whole form he submitted. Because the form had no special directions, HRS 338-14.3 would require the HDOH to verify the accurate, legally-probative facts, and HI can't do that for Obama because his birth record is late and amended - and thus not legally probative as per HRS 338-17.
2. Keep the request for verification that asked the HDOH to verify what is on Obama's birth record. The HDOH can do that without claiming that any of those CLAIMS on the BC are actuallly accurate or legally valid.
3. Change the request from asking for verification that what Obama posted online is a "true and accurate representation of the record on file" - to asking if the INFORMATION on what Obama posted matches what is on file. This is necessary because what Obama posted is an ABSTRACT or composite of what is typed (the incomplete BC) and what is "actually written down" (the affidavits to support the late and amended filing). And it lacks the notations that it was late and amended.
This is why they had to C&P the document. The stamps on the real thing (the non-forged version, if they have one, at the HDOh) would have filled the empty space toward the top of the BC, and the notation of what evidence was submitted to support the late filing and amendment were right in the area where the seal was supposed to go.
I'd post the article which shows the documentation, but I don't know how to post a PDF. And I'd try to get this as a blogger post that serves as a new article in the special category in News/Acivism as per the new policy, but I don't know how to do that either. I'll ask for help from the mods.
In the first comment I'll give a clickable link to the article showing the documentation.
Lovely quilts - thank for sharing! I still have the top of a double wedding ring quilt that my grandmother made in the 1930s but put away and never finished.
I took a quilting class and got down the basics but I am too afraid to ruin an heirloom so haven’t tried finishing it yet....ah well, one of these days the kids will be grown and gone : ( and I’ll have time to really work at it slowly and carefully.
Hang in there - I feel like the cracks in the dam are widening a bit and one of these days the torrent of information will come flooding out - I pray that it’s not too late to save the country but I also know that God will always preserve a remnant...either that or He’ll take us all home!
I’m sorry, but your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. provided an itemized list to say that they have a record on file that matches those items and YOU claimed that a “one-sentence” comment somehow verifies everything else that was not part of that itemized list. What would be the point of itemizing those items if a one-sentence reply verified the entire document?? And the attitude expressed in your comments comes across as unnecessarily condescending.
Is the top already done, or are there cloth pieces you still have to put together? The double wedding ring is a little bit tricky to get it to all lie flat. but it sure is beautiful when it’s done.
Are you in MN? We lived in MN for 7 years and loved it; a lot of quilters there. Don’t be afraid to ask some of the old-timers for tips on what designs to use for the quilting; I’m sure they would consider it a great compliment and would give you some good advice.
Your thoughts about the dam bursting and about God’s faithfulness are things I think about a lot. If I didn’t have God’s promises to hold onto, I don’t know what I’d do - especially in times like these.
I actually wonder if that’s part of the reason that some of the libs don’t see what’s going on: it would be too scary a thing to even ATTEMPT to navigate alone, without a powerful and sovereign God to trust in. But it would also be scary to believe in a powerful and sovereign God, if your whole life was spent opposing what He has said.
Both Obama and his attorney failed to show up for a procedure in which their presence was ordered by a judge. That’s the equivalent of Obama and his attorney flipping off the judge and waving their private parts at the judge’s auntie.
They’re not worried about laws. Laws are for little people. And that is precisely why this matters so much. He may as well wipe his bottom on the American flag in full view of everybody. All he’d get is orgasmic praise from the left, a whimper from a few of us, and loud condemnation OF US from the “conservative media”, candidates, and Congress.
I’m picturing in my mind a “certification” which just says:
What you said.
(signed) Alvin Onaka
How would something like that ever mean anything? A verification that doesn’t say specifically what it’s verifying would be useless. That’s why a real verification would not leave items 2-12 hanging without a sentence saying what those items ARE (for instance items on the birth certificate, items on the record, or true facts being verified).
But even on #1 the only thing specifically verified is the existence of a birth certificate. The use of the word “indicating” rather than “verifying” suggests that the BC itself doesn’t even swear to the accuracy of the claims - as if the sworn statements were on supplemental documents such as affidavits rather than on the BC itself. When Fukino gave her statement about having seen the “vital records verifying” that Obama was born in HI, she referred to multiple vital records. Even if she had referred to a singular vital record, that vital record would include not only the BC but all the affidavits in support of it - although for her to see the affidavits she would have to look in a different file. Hmm. Those are 2 different items in the retention schedule though. The birth certificates have a different reference code than the evidence file has. Maybe she DID have to use the plural there.
Maybe that’s why they used the word “indicating” rather than “verifying”. HRS 338-14.3 requires them to verify that the CERTIFICATE exists but they can’t even claim that the BIRTH CERTIFICATE itself “verifies” (swears to) anything, because the actual sworn statements are on affidavits in the evidence file - not on the birth certificate.
The certification says that the INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE was used to verify those items (which were requested to be FROM THE RECORD). The BC would have note of what affidavits were on file to support the claims. Could be that those notes were used as justification for consulting the evidence files as well, and reporting what was in the evidence file in this “verification”.
The actual name of the FIELD on the BC is “Signature of Parent or Other Informant”. BEnnett requested “Date of signature of parent” which would be a reference to that particular field. So that could have been the signature of Madelyn Dunham on an affidavit dated 8-7, right before she reported the birth to the local registrar the next day.
The attendant swears that the child was born alive on the date and time stated in the certificate. Doesn’t have to be an eyewitness. That might have been the local registrar who signed that, based on the signature of the informant. Which would have made Madelyn think the bases were covered for a HI birth certificate. I wonder what the procedure was for filling out the actual form when a birth was reported by an informant - who would be considered the “attendant”, and whether they would sign something on the BC or in an affidavit.
But they didn’t have a birth weight, which is a REQUIRED item even though it doesn’t show up on a standard long-form. And couldn’t GET a birth weight because neither Stanley Ann nor the baby were in Hawaii. That was probably the snag that Obama had to correct in 2006.
Now that I’m officially talking to myself (lol)...
At http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/arpaio-not-buying-hawaiis-obama-birth-story/ it looks like Sheriff Arpaio is thinking that Hawaii is verifying that Obama was born there. I don’t believe Hawaii even claims to verify that in that “verification”, and I think Mike Zullo realizes that. So Mike and Arpaio need to get together and figure out what that “verification” does and doesn’t mean.
I believe Mike has said that the signature being initialed means it’s not even a legal certification. So it wouldn’t have any legal value even if I was dead wrong on everything I’ve been saying.
No - we’re not in Minnesota (did you guess that from the Viking tag?) We’re actually all the way out in the Leftist La-la land of Seattle, which is where all the good Norwegians settled if they skipped Minnesota and North Dakota! : )
There are several quilting groups in the area and my aunt does beautiful machine quilting. I kind of want to hand quilt my Grandma’s but I may just have to give up my grandiose ideas if I don’t get started sooner rather than later. It is all finished. She was in the process of backing it when she lost two children in two weeks and it was just too painful to look at all the fabrics. Even 60 years later, when she couldn’t remember what she had for breakfast, she could look at that quilt and tell me what each piece was...”Oh, that was a dress of Kathleen’s, that was one of Earl’s work shirts.....”
As for the liberals, I believe that you are right. They have spent their whole lives fighting against the existence of God because that would mean they really aren’t in control. Those of us who know the truth have a perspective and a peace they just can’t get a hold of and it frustrates them terribly. I really think that’s why liberals are so angry all the time. It all really comes down to pride - there is nothing new under the sun. It’s the sin by which the angels fell and it’s the sin that drives the world today. But we cannot tire of doing what is good because in the end, God will make all things right and new. It’s a hard balance to know when to fight on and when to just trust and wait but I truly appreciate all of the hard work that you have done!
Hope you have a lovely Memorial Day! Keep looking up - we know from where our strength cometh....and thankfully it is NOT Washington DC!
Good counsel. Thank you, and I will. =)
I cannot even imagine losing 2 children in 2 weeks. It was hard enough losing our daughter to stillbirth a week before moving to MN and having my husband start the ministry. Right now I’m cross-stitching a remembrance for my daughter’s speech coach, whose son was stillborn a little over a week ago. It’s easy for everybody else to move on, but I don’t know if there’s been a day since that day over 19 years ago that I’ve not in some way thought of my daughter. I want this speech coach and her husband (who are also my friends that I worked with) to know they’re not alone in their sorrow, and that we all recognize how precious their son is, even though neither they nor we get the joy of seeing him grow up.
You are in my prayers! I do not believe there is any greater pain on this earth than that of losing a child.
Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal. ~From a headstone in Ireland
Um, no, I didn't. I have no idea where you got that idea.
When you said: “By law (HRS 338-14.3), Onaka’s one-sentence statement verifying the existence of a record on file certifies each and every fact supplied by Bennett on the request form.” Bennett also supplied a copy of the alleged LFBC. There would be no reason to itemize “each and every fact supplied by Bennett” if a one-sentence statement “certifies” what Bennett “supplied” with the request form. Under your logic, this would mean that one sentence would certify the entire form and NOT just the list that Bennett itemized and that Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. itemized in return.
Under the law, there are two parts to a letter of verification. The first part addresses the request form. The second part addresses “any other information.”
You have totally misinterpreted and mischaracterized everything I said. Read post #103. Then read posts #140 & 141.
I’ve read your posts already. No one mischaracterized antyhing. You summed it up with the “one sentence” nonsense which is undermined by the itemized list that Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. wrote up. If the only thing necessary to “certify” the entire alleged certificate and/or the “additional items” was the one sentence, then there was no point in compiling an itemized list of specific items, especially when Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. omitted a response to this requested information: “Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
Then, clearly, you didn't understand them because your summary of my posts is factually incorrect.
No one mischaracterized antyhing.
If you aren't mischaracterizing my posts, then you're lying about them because you are still inaccurately summarizing what I posted.
You summed it up with the one sentence nonsense which is undermined by the itemized list that Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. wrote up.
I didn't sum up anything with reference to Onaka's one-sentence statement. My posts regarding Onaka's one-sentence statement were in response to the OP's claim that Hawaii didn't respond to Bennett's original request form.
If the only thing necessary to certify the entire alleged certificate and/or the additional items was the one sentence,
Yet again, I never said that.
then there was no point in compiling an itemized list of specific items,
I explained in post #103 and #132 that Onaka's response has TWO parts as required under the law. Here is what I said, verbatim in #132:
HRS 338-14.3 stipulates that the "Verification in lieu of a certified copy" has TWO parts: (1) the verification of the existence of a certificate AND (2) verification of any other information the applicant supplies.As I said in post #103, Onaka's itemized list was provided under the second part of the verification requirements.
especially when Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. omitted a response to this requested information: Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.
Onaka didn't omit a response to that information. He replied as follows:
"Additionally, 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 in our files."Here is the legal definition of the noun match.
match: (Duplicate), clone, companion, copy, equal, exact copy, exact duplicate, exact likeness, facsimile, likeness, mate, mirror, mirror copy, model, perfect likeness, reflection, replica, resemblance, semblance, the image, twinIn a court of law, Onaka's statement would be held to mean that the vital event data on the copy of the WH LFBC that Bennett submitted exactly matched the vital event data on the original vital record on file at the HDoH.
No court would hold that Onaka omitted a response or failed to respond to Bennett's "true and accurate representation" request.
It is foolish to claim that Onaka failed to comply with HRS 338-14.3 in any way.
Nobody mischaracterized anything you said. You’re going overbaord in trying to defend you’re post. I gave the direct quote that supported my point. The C&P of the definition of match is simply a sign of sheer desperation. Give it up.
Yes, you did.
I gave the direct quote that supported my point.
Oh, you quoted something I said all right, but what you quoted was totally unrelated to the point you tried to make. One had nothing to do with the other.
Then afer you confused your own logic, you claimed I said things I didn't.
Anyone who is interested in the truth and the law can read my posts and follow along quite nicely.
I don't expect you to follow it though because you're probably still claiming that Orly Taitz issued a valid subpoena to Hawaii from a court in D.C.
How about you give up trying to interpret the law? You've never been very good at it on these threads.
Now stop wasting my time with your foolishness.
No one’s forcing you to keep replying and to keep denying, so you can drop the melodrama about allegedly “wasting” your time. And again, you’re trying way too hard. I’ve read the law and your posts and I stand by what I’ve already said.
Here in a nut shell of an hour video presentation by a Pastor and former Law Enforceman Officer is ALL you need to know and act on!!!
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.