“Verification” Verifies – if anything – that Obama’s Record is Legally Non-valid

Bennett told TheCipher (a Freeper) he DID ask for the birth date – which was only on the request form, so he must not have withdrawn the form request. If that’s the case, then this verification is the official response to that form.

The “verification” references HRS 338-14.3 and calls itself a “verification of birth”. HRS 338-14.3 says, in part:

“(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

(b) A verification 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.”

By responding at all the HDOH acknowledged Bennett’s eligibility to receive a verification. By referencing HRS 338-14.3 they are acknowledging that what they disclose is governed by that. They are REQUIRED to verify the existence of a certificate, and they did that. They did not claim that the place of birth was Honolulu, HI – only that the birth certificate “indicates” (not verifies) a Honolulu, HI birth.

The procedure for verifying the facts of birth is that the person applying for a verification gives the facts in question and the HDOH repeats back to them anything that they got right and verifies that it is correct. Anything they don’t verify as correct is not correct – either because there is something else in that field on the birth record, or because the facts about the birth cannot be certified as accurate (because the certificate is not legally valid).

When filling out that form, Bennett presumably gave the HDOH the following guesses for facts:

Gender: male
Date of birth: Aug 4, 1961
City and island of birth: Honolulu, HI/ Oahu
Father’s name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mother’s name: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama

The HDOH did not verify any of those facts, so they are either not what is claimed on the BC or the BC they’re on is not a legally valid record.

But the HDOH verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record. So that can’t be the reason.

That leaves a legally non-valid record as the only reason for their refusal to verify those “facts of birth”.

This “verification” – if it legally verifies anything, given the initials by the certification on it – actually verifies that Obama’s birth record is not legally valid.

That being the case, the other items to be verified “from the record” are clearly being verified only as being ON that record – not being the true facts of his birth. If they couldn’t verify the true date and place of birth or parents’ names because the record was legally invalid, then they can’t verify ANYTHING from that BC as being true. All they can verify is what is on it, not that what is on it is true. Which is actually what is implied in the certifying statement.

Again – if the HDOH has verified anything with this “verification”, it is that Obama’s birth record is legally non-valid.

About these ads

46 Comments

  1. yo
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    What you have hit upon here seems to be what the cold case posse specializes in. Which is the role of gov’t and exactly what the gov’t says and what the gov’t certifies. ie the stamp on the selective service card, etc.

    I think if you have this right the cold case posse will be all over this.

    • Posted May 30, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Onaka/HDOH put a LOT of fudge room in this “verification”. The initials close to the certification give Onaka room to claim that he knew nothing about this certification, and a signature is only legally binding if the person INTENDED to sign it. IOW, this “verification” is probably LEGALLY just a “no comment”, because of the fudge room built into it.

      But if it actually verifies anything, it verifies that there is a birth certificate for Obama at the HDOH and it is not legally valid.

      The CCP is aware of how flimsy this document is. Seems like Zullo hasn’t been getting my emails but I think he got what I wrote from somebody else sending it to him.

      If the BC is late as well as amended – which seems to be why they have to mess with Virginia Sunahara and the BC#’s – then Obama has NEVER had a legally-valid HI birth certificate. That would mean that anytime he presented a birth certificate it was a BC from someplace besides Hawaii. No wonder all his records are hidden!

  2. Multisigma
    Posted May 30, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    A more important matter now involves what can be done about it. Presumably, Bennett has the ball but seems content to accept the easy way out by using the non-verification as a de facto verification for AZ ballot purposes. That would seem to impede the momentum of the investigation. Will the CCP be able to convince him to grow a spine? Or will they have to issue a separate appraisal of the events that will promptly be ignored by all concerned? Another book would be a natural outgrowth, but perhaps not well aligned to American media preferences.
    It is at times like this that I dream of a video entity along the lines of the PBS Frontline program, but with a more conservative bent such that they would take on issues like this with the same documentary fervor and hard, analytical methods. Maybe somebody in the Breitbart organization might be interested?
    Remember the old saying: “Americans won’t believe anything until they see it in a movie, and then they won’t believe anything else”…

    • Posted May 30, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Breitbart is too scared. That’s what happens when you see your fearless leader hit the ground dead less than 5 hours after telling Arpaio that Arpaio’s evidence is good and that you’re glad he’s going to make that evidence public.

      The Obama people have been counting on threats – shown to be credible – to silence people. And according to Mike Zullo, head of the Cold Case Posse, those threats are working. One eyewitness to the media threats, who we were worried about, has left the country out of safety concerns. Others have quit their jobs…

      At this point public knowledge in spite of the media blackout is what will make a difference. And that’s got to be by word-of-mouth, which is you and me. The elites need to realize that the Obama Administration is trying to ride the tiger – we the people – and it’s no longer working.

      I read part of an article about Pete Hoekstra saying that Presidential candidates should be checked for eligibility before they can take office. He’s in a primary challenge, IIRC. Between Trump, the Cold Case Posse, Obama’s own bio, and the election season upon us, this is a good time for making ourselves heard.

      • Multisigma
        Posted June 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

        An additional opportunity may arise as a result of the Elizabeth Warren debacle over her supposed Cherokee ancestry- under pressure, she is forced to admit that she has been lying repeatedly about important details, and the resultant exposure is sinking her candidacy and exposing her character flaws, along with the credibility of all those who supported her claims.
        As the comment on this case over at WZ contends, “she is incapable of admitting she did something wrong, a trait shared by the vast majority of elitist libs”.
        In fact, there would seem to be a lot of similarity between the motives and methods of the two examples, so perhaps the common factors of intent to defraud and perjury can be explained to the public.
        I would suggest that someone with Photoshop skills might jin up a clever graphic of a Massachusetts birth certificate dated, say, 100 years ago and including an entry stipulating the birth race of the great-grandmother as “Cherokee”. Once media attention was attracted, the cover could be blown and the point made about how easily such forgeries can be created and dispensed.

      • Posted June 3, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        It really and truly is a situation of “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?”

        Or the corollary, “If a man says something and there’s no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?” lol. Just kidding. Some of my best friends are men. =)

        We’ve already got so much against Obama that he shouldn’t have any chance of election – or of evading justice. But if there’s no way to arrest Obama it won’t make any difference from a law enforcement standpoint. And if there’s no way to get the message out to people it won’t make a difference politically. Our biggest enemy is the lying media – and that includes the threatened “conservative” media.

        So the challenge is how to fight the propaganda. That’s how oppressive, tyrannical, lawless regimes have always gained control over the whole system, and now it’s our turn to have to stand up to it.

  3. Dana Tracy
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    How do we make ourselves heard? I’ve written to Dean Heller, Mark Amodei, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and several other politicians and not one reply. Either they don’t want to deal with the problem or their people are intercepting my communications and they aren’t even receiving them. I’ve also signed several petitions and sent faxes but who knows where they ended up.

    • Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:09 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think we need to keep talking to those people so they know we’re here, but I think commenting on stories online, driving up traffic to sites that discuss the issue credibly, Tweeting about it, making the issue the lead search item, shutting off the dead media, complaining to “conservative” media people who poo-pooh the issue, etc are all ways that we can raise awareness of this issue. Basically just by remindng each other that the emperor is naked we can help reach the point where we all know we’re being lied to and there is a strong desire to make the lies stop.

      The only way the Congress-critters ever have to pay attention to us is when we boot them out. Seriously. We flooded the Congressional phone lines at Christmas time – first over Obamacare and then over the START Treaty – and they never heard a word we were saying until the landslide in Nov 2010. And by Dec they had forgotten that landslide already.

      Another thing we can do is at the state level. For instance, it was a group of Tea Party patriots who pressured Bennett into asking for this verification, and as a result we’ve got the HDOH on the record indirectly confirming that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid. We had pressure in Georgia and the whole world was able to see that Obama got onto the GA ballot only through a sharia ruling – based on “judge’s knowledge” because no evidence of eligibility was presented. Same thing in NJ. And we all watched both Obama and his attorney flip the bird at Judge Malihi and his order to appear in court – without anybody doing a thing about it. If anybody had any questions about this country being turned into a third-world banana republic, that should have answered those questions – on full display for everybody to see.

      The more we let people know that all the arguments about “standing”, “not the right time to challenge this”, etc are just a bunch of BS now that we’ve seen the rule of law spat upon blatantly…. the more people will resist both the media and the people trying to shove this crap sandwich down our throats. People want America to come back. We’ve had a vacation from America being what she’s always been, and I think a lot of people who have seen what’s going on are getting really homesick. Enough to vote for an unknown felon over Obama…

      What we’re doing is making a difference. The media tries to hide it from us, but there are a LOT of people who know Obama is a criminal fraud, and the crimes behind the eligibility issue help them realize that the destruction of the US under his watch is NOT an accident. It’s what he’s been groomed to do.

      The Hillary people are feeling confident enough to tell their stories about the criminality in the DNC to law enforcement. The cracks in the dam are having an effect. I don’t know if you read about Dianne Feinstein announcing Bin Laden’s death before Obama did, but there is a big rift in the democratic party. There are people who I may not agree with politically but who realize that we can’t have this lawlessness. Or maybe they just want to grab power from Obama. But a rift in the dem party has to be good news.

      Like the people of Who-ville, we keep yopping and getting others to yop with us, and one of those “yop’s” will raise the volume just enough that Horton hears us and knows we are a force to be reckoned with. Even if it’s just the political polls, eventually the bell that is tolling gets heard.

  4. drkate
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent work as always. I sent to my contacts to send to Zullo. Thank you!

  5. Joe Kemec
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I find it hard to belive that Bennett is that stupid or naive to not see through this facade.

    His first clue should have been when he was told Hawaii’s “attorneys” would tell him how to word his request.

    His second clue should have been when they (attorneys) demanded he remove the “true and accurate” from his request. (Duh – whats the entire point ???)

    Like a newspaper “article” often quite the opposite of what the “headline” says, the word VERIFICATION (of Birth — duh, we were not questioning is “birth”), got REVERSED with the later word “INDICATES”.

    But of course the main point should be that the “initials” at the end invalidate the entire document because it is no-longer a vaiid signature of the only person that can legally validate it.

    It is not rocket-science, this was all so obvious even I could immediately see it. (but I am a rocket-scientist)

    Bennett has done the people of Arizona a dis-service and guilty of mis-prision of TREASON by ignoring the obvious.

    I HOPE he can be man-enough to admit he was defrauded and DEMAND “true and accurate” from Hawaii.

    • Posted June 3, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Even better, one of the other states should use Hawaii’s response to Bennett as proof that a Secretary of State is eligible to receive verification, request a straight verification, and make the HDOH clarify that they are NOT verifying the truth of any fact of Obama’s birth.

      Rumors are that “they” (HDOH?) are trying to put together a forged BC that will survive forensic scrutiny (on the age of paper and ink, etc) – but if it matches what Obama posted it will not survive forensic scrutiny because of the forgery errors that were made, above and beyond the layers.

      I think right now it’s an issue of whether anybody in Hawaii believes that the rule of law will catch up to them. If they think there’s a chance of that, they will require more drastic threats to get them to perjure themselves – which may just be enough to get SOMEBODY to turn for an immunity deal. If Trump wanted to use his money to impact this situation, maybe he could offer to provide witness protection. That may be what it takes to break this thing open.

  6. Posted June 3, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The form used is the same form for a birth certificate. If the information entered into the form DOES NOT EXACTLY MATCH the information on file, you get a blank space where the field would go.

    As soon as I saw the missing info, I called AG Bennett to ask him what he filled out, and he told me he filled out all of the fields. So, then I told him wy he did not get a birth date back.

    So, yes, Obama’s currently-listed birth date on record in Hawaii is NOT August 4, 1961. The original birth date may have been January 4, 1961, or July 18, 1961 and it was submitted as a DELAYED registration on August 4, 1961, since the registrant was less than one year old, by the mother or grandmother.

    Anytime a new original birth certificate is issued, it triggers a vital record report to the newspaper. An adoption would also generate a new original birth certificate and a new birth announcement.

    The second original birth certificate that replaced the one before it has a different birth date when it was also AMENDED for a name change, in 1982, and submitted by OBAMA himself.

    That is when Barry Soetoro became Barack Obama.

    Before then, he was still Barry Soetoro, with a passport from Indonesia and masquerading as an Indonesian foreign student, using that name in 1981 to get into Pakistan and into Occidental.

    After the Old Man died in 1982, Barry Soetoro changed his legal name (stole the name) to Barack Hussein Obama II when he got into the LAST YEAR of Columbia (if he went there at all).

    Now, there was a second Amendment made, between October 31, 2008 and July 29, 2009, which was not an AMENDED birth certificate but a bogus short form birth certificate containing all of the fraudulent information that was on the original COLB forgery.

    But, the bottom line is that his biological mother and father were not Stanley Ann Duham and BHO Sr. regardless of what was on the birth record.

    • Posted June 4, 2012 at 1:33 am | Permalink | Reply

      If there was an adoption the original birth certificate is sealed, by law. At one point I asked to see the judge’s order which allowed Fukino to see the original birth certificate for Obama and was told there were no records responsive to my request. So if we just take the HDOH at its word, the BC that they refer to as the “original” is whatever is on the record right now, not anything that is sealed, unless they got a court order to unseal records since I made my request.

      So when Onaka verified that the information on what Obama posted online “matches” what they have on the original record, that would presumably be the only “original record” they are allowed by law to access: the one in effect right now. It wasn’t just the birth date that they refused to verify; it was also the birth place, gender, mother’s name, and father’s name. Unless he had a sex change operation at some time, at least the gender should be accurate. For them to not verify that he’s male, then, the snag must be that the record they have is not legally valid, and they know it is not legally valid.

      If Hawaii has been breaking laws at will all these years anything is possible. But to have an adoptive BC that changes the b-date would definitely be unlawful. I don’t believe that a person can submit a birth certificate for him/herself unless it is a delayed BC relying on affidavits. The lt governor’s office twice told me that they have no name change orders involving anybody with the last name of Soetoro, Dunham, or Obama. I’m not sure what you mean by an amendment that was actually a bogus COLB. But all of those things would involve the State of HI breaking laws. Which is within the realm of possibility but the only way we’d know for sure what happened with his actual records in Hawaii is by auditing the computer transactions on any related files and forensically testing both the original paper documents and multiple microfilm rolls. Plus doing the same for ALL his vital/citizenship records.

      I don’t know exactly what happened. What I do know is that by law, the HDOH can only refuse to verify the factual information requested by an eligible applicant if the information given doesn’t match what is on the record (but the HDOH says the information on Obama’s posted long-form, which was the same as what Bennett asked to be verified, DID match their record) ….. OR if the legal facts cannot be known because the record is legally non-valid.

      No matter how you slice it, what Obama has in Hawaii cannot be legally valid unless the HDOH is lying to Bennett. Either way, it deserves a legal investigation because SOMEBODY is lying on a very, very serious matter.

      I’m not convinced that the HDOH was the source for any of the birth announcements in the papers before 1976 – which was the first time that lists for the newspapers were authorized.

      • gorefan
        Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

        Hi Butter,

        The DOH has issued another verification in the case of Taitz v. Mississippi Democratic Party. In that verification they say that the information on the LFBC displayed at whitehouse.gov matches what is on the original certificate in the DOH vault amd that they used the orginal vital record to verifiy the info.

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss

        That would be all the information DOB, hospital name, etc.

      • Posted June 7, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

        This is the exact same thing as they did for AZ. They verified that a BC exists and they verified that the information on that BC is the same as on what Obama posted. The democrats played the same verbal games in this case as was played in AZ, except that this time they did NOT ask Onaka to verify the facts of birth. HRS 338-14.3 says that verification is certification that the facts as stated by the applicant actually occurred. In the AZ instance, the facts were given and HI would not verify them. In the case the democrats didn’t even give any facts to be verified – therefore this verification certifies that the facts as stated by the applicant (no facts) are verified as truly having happened.

        This verification verifies only that there is a birth certificate and that the information on it matches what was on Obama’s posted long-form. It does NOT verify the legal facts of Obama’s birth and supports what I’ve been saying: that they will not verify the legal facts of Obama’s birth because his BC is late and amended and thus not legally valid.

        Here’s the geometric proof type illustration. This would be a true statement:

        Given that 1. A(specific claims) = B (actual BC) and
        2. B is legally valid…….,
        therefore A is legally valid.

        All the dems in this case asked for was for Hawaii to verify #1. You cannot go from #1 to the final conclusion without #2 also being true. The dems were very careful NOT to ask for #2 to be verified – and that careful wording suggests to me that they know there are problems and are guilty of attempting to deceive the court; if I were Orly I would press for contempt of court charges – BECAUSE what HI indirectly confirmed in their “verification” for AZ was that #2 is NOT true.

        This “verification” is further support for what I’ve been saying. Hawaii will not verify the facts of Obama’s birth and the legal tap-dancing (now 2 times in a row) to avoid them having to do so is now a pattern. Bennett had to “re-word” his request and apparently the re-wording was about the INFORMATION matching the long-form Obama posted, rather than being a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. This was necessary in BOTH these requests because HI could not verify Obama’s posted BC as being a true and accurate representation (even though the information on what Obama posted matched the corresponding info on the real record) since what Obama posted lacked the LATE and ALTERED stamps and notation of the supporting documentation for the late filing and amendment.

      • gorefan
        Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

        In looking at the new verification. The raised seal appears to be embossed. So I suspect that there are two seals at the DOH, an embossed and a debossed. Depending on where Dr. Onaka’s signature is (front or back of paper) you get one or the other.

      • Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

        Notice how clear that stamp is. That is what a straight scan of a document with a raised seal should look like.

        Compare that with what’s on Obama’s posted long-form – either the WH document or the photo by Guthrie.

        The comparison will show you what the HHS inspector general meant by a “vague” seal – a red flag that should cause an audit of a record. See http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

      • HistorianDude
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        You wrote:

        “This verification verifies only that there is a birth certificate and that the information on it matches what was on Obama’s posted long-form.”

        Well… not exactly. It verifies that there is an “original” birth certificate, and that the information on it matches what was on Obama’s long-form. With those two verifications there remains exactly no wiggle room left for even the most tendentious Birther theories regarding the documentation of his birth.

        The explicit verification that they hold the original, and that the original is what they used to verify the information is a final nail in your (always absurd) hypothesis regarding some imaginary amendment of the certificate. “Amended” does not equal “original” under any credibly honest use of the English language.

        Now… I am fully aware that you consider the entire Hawaiian DoH to be pathological liars. Alas, name calling is neither evidence nor a legal argument so that particular accusation needs no attention by serious commentators.

        “It does NOT verify the legal facts of Obama’s birth and supports what I’ve been saying: that they will not verify the legal facts of Obama’s birth because his BC is late and amended and thus not legally valid.”

        Nonsense. The verification that the information matches is comprehensive, unambiguous and allows no latitude. Every single legal fact on the Whitehouse PDF has been verified as matching the legal facts on the original.

        This includes of course the blank in Block 23. Were there something on the certificate that Dr. Onaka compared in that block, it would be a lie for him to have verified that the information “matches” the Whitehouse PDF which is blank. So we know with certainty now that the certificate has never been amended and was not delayed.

        Your very odd implication that there is some additional magical ritual by which an original birth record becomes “legally valid” is incomprehensible. The act of acceptance is what established legal validity, and President Obama’s birth certificate was accepted by both the local and general registrars on August 8, 1961.

        “Bennett had to “re-word” his request and apparently the re-wording was about the INFORMATION matching the long-form Obama posted, rather than being a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.

        Again, you appear to be engaging in your general habit of making stuff up. The correspondence between Bennett and Hawaii is for the most part public records, and in it he was never asked to “reword” his request. He was instead asked (repeatedly) to establish his legal right to the verification. Once that was established, the verification he received is exactly the one that he requested… to include his (probably accidental) omission of the President’s birth-date from the request.

        The repeated assertion that Bennet filled out some other imaginary form has no support. And as the correspondence filed by the DNC in Mississippi shows, no such form is necessary. Have you ever even seen such a form?

        All that said… what is the difference between “the information matches” and “the information is a true and accurate representation?” Again, I can conceive of no honest use of the English language in which those two phrases are not exactly synonymous.

      • Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

        HD, you are not listening. I’ve addressed everything you mentioned here, except the item for listing documents in support of late filings and amendments. There was no “information” in that line on Obama’s posted form. If the word “none” or N/A had been included then there would have been information. The verification was asking whether all the information that was actually on Obama’s posted BC matched the info on the original record. There was no information for that item on Obama’s posted BC so there was nothing to even CHECK for a match for that item. They could accurately say that information actually listed on Obama’s posted BC matched what was on the original.

        But they couldn’t say that Obama’s posting was an accurate and true representation of the original because the original had more than what Obama posted.

        Bennett’s original request (found at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php?ref=fpnewsfeed ) began thusly:

        “Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form,….”

        At http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_apologizes_obama_birther_hawaii_arizona.php Bennett said he had to “re-word” his request.

        You asked: “hat is the difference between “the information matches” and “the information is a true and accurate representation?” Again, I can conceive of no honest use of the English language in which those two phrases are not exactly synonymous.”

        If it was synonymous then Bennett would not have had to “re-word” his request. That is the only portion of the response that was different than what was in Bennett’s original request so it is apparently what needed to be changed.

        And I’ve already said what the difference is. The information that was given matches, but there is more information in the original than was given.

        Let me give an example.
        Please verify that the information in this recipe matches the information in your master recipe:
        Ingredient 1: flour
        Ingredient 2: sugar
        Ingredient 3: baking powder

        Process that request, given that the original recipe is:
        Ingredient 1: flour
        Ingredient 2: sugar
        Ingredient 3: baking powder
        Ingredient 4: eggs
        Ingredient 5: salt
        Ingredient 6: cocoa
        Ingredient 7: milk

        Is ingredient 1 a match?
        Is ingredient 2 a match?
        Is ingredient 3 a match?
        That’s all the information provided for you to verify, so what would your answer be?

        Now process it where they’re not just asking to verify that the information provided (completed fields) match, but that the document presented is a true and accurate representation of the master recipe.

        Everybody but HD, please tell me whether I’m beating a dead horse here. I thought I addressed this clearly. Is there something not clear about this stuff, or is HD just not listening or accepting what I’ve already said?

      • gorefan
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

        Compare the raised seal on the verification with the raised seal on the various COLB’s that have been presented – Danae’s for instance. Those are almost always nearly invisible. Why?

      • Posted June 8, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

        Obama’s printout was not a computer-generated one. It was photocopied/scanned (supposedly onto security paper) The seal on his could not have been computer-applied dots and dashes. It was hand-applied. Like the stamps on the Nordyke BC’s. That’s a different stamp than for computer-generated docs/seals. And those genuine, hand-applied embossed stamps are not only very visible but also very DETAILED (which is what I was commenting on).

        When you compare apples to apples, the deficiency of Obama’s supposed hand-stamped embossed seal is shown for how pathetic a forgery it really is.

        Why did they have to forge an indistinct seal if they had a certified BC from the HDOH that had the same information as the forged copy they posted? Because the seal goes right where the notations of documentation to support late and amended filings is. And those were some of the lines they had to get rid of because of those notations (as well as the parts where the LATE and ALTERED stamps were).

  7. Posted June 3, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The way we get it done is to debunk his parents and grandparents, the places they have been, and what they have done.

    For openers, a low-count DNA comparison was made by MI6 between Madeline Dunham and Barack Obama using saliva from wine glasses. They found no alleles in common.

    Watch this week for a new story and video of mine called

    OBAMA’S HOUSE OF NIL REPUTE

    –Edited out some content at Dr Polland’s request

    • Posted June 4, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink | Reply

      Interesting. Do you have a link for the M16 investigation, or how do you know about that? Thanks!

      With Obama and all the people surrounding him lying and breaking laws constantly, just about anything is possible.

      • Posted June 4, 2012 at 2:27 am | Permalink

        I’ll look for it tomorrow. I was also told it directly from a former agent in London.

  8. David Newton
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss

  9. HistorianDude
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thought you’d be interested in the following, A verification of Obama’s long form from the State of Hawaii was filed in the Mississippi ballot challenge today. It is here at Exhibit 2. This is not the one issued to Arizona.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss

    The document was not merely filed as an attachment, but the original was delivered to the court itself to be held in the judge’s custody until the case is decided. It is not merely stamped and sealed by the Registrar, but the signature stamp of Dr. Onaka is initialed by the doctor himself.

    • ksdb
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      One wonders why he didn’t just sign it instead of stamp it and initial it.

    • Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I wonder why they’ve all of a sudden taken to initialing certifications – as if we can’t trust that a certifying stamp really means that a document is certified. So now do we accept a certification that’s not initialed, like on a BC? Why the initials? And why are the initials on this one those of Onaka, when the initials on the AZ verification were somebody else’s?

  10. ksdb
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:29 am | Permalink | Reply

    Alvin T. Onaka just provided a similar verifcation to the Mississippi Democrat Executive Committee, no questions asked. The link is here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss

    • Posted June 7, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This verification was different in one very important respect: the MDEC did not even ask Onaka to verify specific facts. HI had made the mistake of responding to the AZ request on May 22 without making Bennett withdraw the verification request form (in the process, actually indirectly confirming that the BC on file is not legally valid, which I posted about here on May 30). On May 24 I noted that HI’s “verification” didn’t verify anything and actually strongly suggested that the BC is legally non-valid. On May 24 the MCEC sent a request duplicating what Bennett’s SHOULD HAVE been required to do in order for HI to respond (specifically NOT include a verification request form). And on May 31st Onaka responded to the legally irrelevant verification asked of him.

      The only legally relevant verification request ever made – a request to verify the legally-accurate, specific birth facts related to Presidential eligibility – was the request form that Bennett filled out. And Onaka’s response (if it was his response, given that he gave wiggle room by the initials that were not his own) was to NOT verify Obama’s gender, date of birth, city and island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name. In short, he refused to verify any fact from Obama’s birth certificate. Because doing so would have been to certify that those facts were legally true. And he can’t certify that because Obama’s BC is late and amended. By refusing to verify those facts he indirectly confirmed that the BC is not legally valid.

      And the MDEC was very careful NOT to ask him to verify those facts – or, actually, ANY facts. Very, very revealing.

      May 22 “Verification” for AZ
      May 24 I posted Hawaii’s Non-Verification
      May 26 MDEC filed this request making sure not to fill out a form for verification

      • gorefan
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

        Putting all this other stuff aside, the Bennett verification proves President Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital and it proves his certification number is 151 61 10641. These are on the original BC.

      • Posted June 8, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

        Those items don’t mean a thing if it’s not a legally valid record. Did you grasp the geometric-type proof I used? You can’t conclude that if A=B then A is legally valid unless you also know that B is legally valid. And all these gymnastics have been done to keep the HDOH from having to say whether the BC is legally valid.

        However, their refusal to verify his gender, birth date, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name (even though those specific claims are on the record they have for Obama) indirectly confirms that the birth record is NOT legally valid. So nothing that is on that record means a thing unless and until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body, which then has to weigh the probative value of the record using legal evidentiary standards.

        If the reason for the record being late and amended was something simple or legitimate then Obama would have no reason to spend lots of money, time, and hassle (to his lawyers) in order to KEEP FROM presenting it as evidence so the claims can be seen and the record determined to be legally probative. Obama and his lawyers chose blatant contempt of court rather than appearing in court or providing ANY evidence regarding his birth facts. (For some reason, Judge Malihi wouldn’t certify the court record so contempt of court charges could even be considered…)

        The number could be (and almost certainly is) an AMENDED number. I’ve shown that Virginia Sunahara’s birth record was under somebody’s name besides her own when the HDOH told me they had no birth record for her. We know they had a birth record for her because her brother has received a computer-generated COLB for her. The reason for her not to show up in a query of the database is because her record (using that BC#) was under somebody else’s name at that point in time. IOW, a computer record was created that had her BC# but somebody else’s name. So the HDOH has shown that BC#’s are fair game to be altered in the computer database, and if they can be altered there then why not on the paper records as well?

        It would certainly explain why they will only allow eligible people to see easily-manipulated computer printouts rather than any ORIGINAL records such as the paper originals or microfilms – in direct violation of UIPA.

        It would also explain why the HDOH messed with me for a long, long time – and went consecutively through about 3 different debunked excuses for why the computer transaction logs could not be disclosed – showing the PROCESSING their office had done on the record (when it was created, accessed, altered, printed, etc), which is public information.

        And, of course, it would also explain why they told me there was no record for Virginia Sunahara when there was.

      • gorefan
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 12:21 am | Permalink

        But they do verify all of those items in the Mississippi verification. Take your recipe example. I hand you my copy of the recipe and ask you if it matches your original. my recipe says:

        Ingredient 1: flour
        Ingredient 2: sugar
        Ingredient 3: baking powder
        Ingredient 4: eggs
        Ingredient 5: salt
        Ingredient 6: cocoa
        Ingredient 7: milk

        You look at your original copy of the recipe and you see:

        Ingredient 1: flour
        Ingredient 2: sugar
        Ingredient 3: baking powder
        Ingredient 4: eggs
        Ingredient 5: salt
        Ingredient 6: cocoa
        Ingredient 7: milk
        Ingredient 8: vanilla extract

        Do you say “Your recipe matches my original recipe.”?

        But that is what Dr. Onaka said, “I looked at the whitehouse pdf [my recipe] and it’s information [ingredients] matches my original BC [original recipe].”

        And he certifies that it matches. That certification is the legal validation. Just like his signature and stamp on a BC is a legal validation.

      • Posted June 8, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

        I hand you a piece of paper which says:
        Grain: flour
        Sweetener: sugar
        Coagulation: eggs
        Flavoring:
        Moistening: shortening

        I ask you if the ingredients I listed match the ingredients on your sheet of paper, which says:

        Grain: flour
        Sweetener: sugar
        Coagulation: eggs
        Flavoring: cocoa
        Moistening: shortening

        The ingredients I listed were flour (the grain) – which matched; sugar (the sweetener)- which matched; eggs (the coagulation) – which matched; and shortening (moistening)- which matched.

        The ingredients I actually listed matched yours. However, my paper is not a true and accurate representation of your paper because I did not list some items that were on your paper.

        We know that Bennett said he had to “re-word” his request. He said he didn’t withdraw the form request so that’s not the change. The difference between what Onaka certified and what Bennett originally asked was to replace the “true and accurate representation” with “the information on it matches”. HD said he didn’t know of any difference between those 2 things. I’ve just shown the difference between those 2. If that’s not the difference, then what are you proposing IS the difference, that the HI AG’s office wouldn’t let Bennett get what he was qualified to receive until that “wording” was changed?

        Also bear in mind that Onaka REFUSED to verify even Obama’s gender or island of birth. Why is that? If that information was on a legally valid record, then what legal reason would Onaka have for refusing to verify those things?

      • Posted June 8, 2012 at 1:10 am | Permalink

        Bennett was allowed to confirm that what had been offered by Obama as supposed proof of his eligibility was in fact a genuine certified copy. HRS 338-18 lists as a reason to qualify for a verification in lieu of a certified copy:

        “(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;”

        It was totally within Bennett’s right to receive a verification that what Obama presented was genuine – not just that the information matched but that what Obama presented was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” – because there are things besides “information” that are on the original records.

        Suppose that Obama had presented a handwritten list containing the same INFORMATION as was on a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (which has a whole different format including a photo and description of physical features/identifiers, and is not legally valid). Would Bennett have a right to know that the information that was listed on the paper he was given actually matches what’s on a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth? Would he know that if the HDOH would only tell him whether or not that INFORMATION matched information from a record in their office? How would Bennett know that the real record had a photo and was legally non-valid, for instance? That graphic (photo) can’t be listed as information to be verified but it is critical to understanding what that record LEGALLY means. LATE and ALTERED stamps are graphic images that make a WORLD of difference. There’s no place to list those graphics as if they were “information” that could be verified. And the HDOH website says that the verification process will NOT verify anything that the applicant isn’t aware of or doesn’t provide to be verified. So unless somebody presented the actual photo that Obama used on a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (for instance), a verification couldn’t say anything about it.

        Only by confirming a certified copy that was submitted – by saying that it is a “true and accurate representation of the record on file” – would the HDOH make the truth about a COHB known.

        So do you recognize that Hawaii, by refusing to respond to Bennett’s request for verification that what Obama posted is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”, made it IMPOSSIBLE for Bennett to know the legal validity of Obama’s record? If you don’t recognize that, then how would the HDOH reveal to Bennett if the original record was (for instance) a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

      • Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        The filing by the lawyers for the MDEC explains what is meant by “information”:

        <)

        Zdg Devell [glklcezlmi pm{ljgs mkklclea cmiklnezlmi
        zdez zdg ‑likmnezlmi„ –

        l)g)
        ! gecd eijg{g| {lzea kecz mk _gsljgiz M`e
        ne“s `lzd szezgj li zdg AK@C pmszgj ez vdlzgdmwsg)fm{ –
        ls zdg senglikmnezlmi cmizeligj li dls mlfliea AK@C mi klag vlzd zdg jgpezngiz)

        OK, looks like when you copy from Scribd it creates nonsense. Now to type it out manually, then, from page 4 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss :

        "9. The Hawaii Verification provides official confirmation that the "information" – i.e. each and every vital fact of President Obama's birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov – is the same information contained in his original LFBC on file with the department."

        When they say "information" they are talking about the "facts" about the birth, not the "facts" about the processing or legal status of the record. Facts about the processing and legal status include the filing date, BC#, LATE and ALTERED stamps, and notations of supporting documentation – which, I remind you, former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama has already indirectly confirmed exists, and the comments by both Neil Abercrombie (telling a Star-Advertiser columnist there was "something actually written down" but that skeptics would not be convinced, and telling Mike Evans there isn't a hospital birth certificate) and former HDOH Director Chiyome Fukino (half written and half typed, and vital record(S) – plural) support as well.

        Keep in mind that any person or organization which requests it is supposed to be able to receive a non-certified short-form. Why would people be allowed to see that? Because it shows the LEGAL STATUS of the record. Index data doesn't do that – at least not if the index has been altered to include legally non-valid records (as I've shown is the case with the 1960-64 birth index). The legal status of a record is NOT PROTECTED FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.

        But the MDEC "conveniently" left off anything that would require the legal status to be revealed. And Hawaii wouldn't respond to Bennett's request until it ALSO "conveniently" left off that part.

        Very, very revealing.

      • Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

        The use of i.e. is revealing there also. The lawyers said “…the “information” – i.e. each and every vital fact of President Obama’s birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov – is the same…”

        At http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/i-e.htm it defines i.e. this way:

        “prep. Abbreviation for id est. Latin meaning “that is,” or “that is to say.” Used to explain or expand a general term and should not be confused with “e.g.” which refers to “for example.”

        “Each and every vital fact of President Obama’s birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov” is not an EXAMPLE of “information”; the claimed vital facts about Obama’s birth are what is MEANT by the term “information”.

        These people are lawyers. They parse words. The use of i.e. instead of e.g. is not an accident. The “information” they wanted compared to the original was the specific claims about THE BIRTH. Saying that the whitehouse.gov image is a “true and correct copy of the original” would require EVERYTHING to match, including the indicators of the legal validity of the record. That is what Hawaii refused to give Bennett, and what the lawyers for the Mississipi Democrats “conveniently” never even asked for.

        And if the judge is worth her salt (fat chance of that) she will know that without an indicator of the legal validity of the record, it doesn’t matter if the “information” matches. Information that matches a legally worthless original is also legally worthless. T

  11. ksdb
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So how come the HI DOH couldn’t figure advise Governor Abercrombie (or anyone else for that matter) that it would be possible to get a letter of verification back in early 2011?? The story put out at the time said they didn’t have any other way to provide a document to verify Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. When do Foggers and Faithers finally admit this is all being played as a big shell game??

    • Posted June 8, 2012 at 12:39 am | Permalink | Reply

      Hawaii was not going to give Bennett anything until he “re-worded” his request, according to Bennett. According to the HI AG’s office, they weren’t going to give anything because Bennett hadn’t yet proven he was eligible to receive a verification. The only way that HI could even pretend to verify anything for Obama (other than the mere existence of a BC of unstated legal value) is by having the request about particular claims be only a verification that those claims were on the (legally non-valid) document they have. If they ever had to verify the actual LEGAL facts, HI would have to stonewall and make up excuses to not respond – to hide that there ARE NO legal facts for Obama’s birth in HI, because his record is not legally valid.

      That’s why they had to pretend that nobody could get a verification. They had to have Obama release something first, because the routine way of verifying the legal birth facts would never work. Bennett did it the routine way but also added the special verifications regarding what is on the document they have (rather than what is legally true). The HDOH’s only response to the routine verification request was to verify that a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II exists in their office. They refused to verify any other legal fact about the birth.

      It’s also why they’ve had to claim that nobody can get even a non-certified short-form (COLB) – when the Administrative Rules clearly say that a non-certified short-form may be disclosed to anybody who asks for it. The Ombudsman’s Office confirmed that as true. Said I should make my request a UIPA request (which it already was).

      I’ve been thinking it is Alvin Onaka who is unwilling to perjure himself.

      At this point, though, with it looking like maybe Obama could get beat in the election and Holder wouldn’t be forestalling justice for them any more… ALL the folks in Hawaii’s bureaucracy must be getting pretty nervous.

      One other thing. When I requested something as harmless as copies of birth and marriage index pages, I was told by OIP attorney Linden Joesting that I couldn’t make a simple UIPA request, even if I was asking for a copy of specific pages. Because my request was for records that contained INDEX DATA, I HAD to use the prescribed method for getting INDEX DATA – which according to the HDOH website had to be done through snail-mail with a SASE. The website (at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html ) says that a letter of verification is requested in a fashion similar to requesting a certified copy, and the description in every instance talks about the applicant submitting an application (which can be downloaded and printed or filled in and submitted online). Why didn’t the lawyers for the MDEC have to fill out an application?

  12. John
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:03 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion,
    The lawyers in Mississippi are slick as well as Hawaii DOH. You will notice lawyers failed to fill out the form request for a letter of certification and instead simply wrote a letter. This is not consistant with rules of the Hawaii DOH:

    “Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.”

    No request form was sent. Had they sent a request form they might run into problems like Bennett had. Instead they simply wrote a letter and Hawaii DOH broke its own rules by responding to the lawyer’s request.

    I believe the failure to submit a request form was a deliberate act on their lawyer’s part to avoid the potential problems you have pointed out.

    You will notice, Hawaii DOH had no problem with responding even though no form was sent.

    • Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I suspect that what they sent in was coordinated with Hawaii, because it matched – EXACTLY – what the HDOH needed them to do in order to avoid the mistakes they made with Bennett. If those lawyers wanted to get a verification in lieu of a certified copy the natural place to look for how to do that is on the HDOH website, and the instructions are clear. Bennett figured it out easily. But these CA lawyers couldn’t figure it out?

      I think they know that they didn’t provide any BIRTH FACTS to be verified, so they are perjuring themselves when they try to deceive the judge into thinking that what they received means that any particular “birth facts” have been certified as being what truly happened.

  13. John
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Butter,
    The Hawaii DOH did several things is wasn’t supposed to do. First it responded to the lawyers without requiring them to fill out a verification request form. Even if they weren’t required to fill out a form, Hawaii made no attempt to tell the lawyers why they got special treatment in the waiver of the rules. Second, Alvin Onaka in the verification form verified facts that are not part of the vital record. Hawaii can only verify specific facts that part of their vital records. The question posed by the lawyers do not cite specific facts in the vital record to verified. I suspect that the request form wasn’t used because of the problems run into by Bennett in submitting his form. With all this being said, are we suppose to accept the word of these Hawaii thugs and the defense by them – We have the birth certificate and it matches what Obama releases but you can’t see it.

  14. John
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butter,
    If Sheriff Joe really wants his hands on Obama’s birth certificate, he needs to establish cooporation with Hawaii Law enforcement. He needs to do this to get Hawaii law enforcement to get a search warrant to seize Obama’s records. Establishing a joint jurisdiction, Hawaii law enforcement can then turn the records over to Sheriff Joe for forensic examination. But, Sheriff Joe needs the cooporation of Hawaii law enforcement since he does not have jurisdiction there.

    In the event that fails, Sheriff Joe should next try to get his hands on all emails and internal memos that discuss Obama’s vital records. Since emails and internal memos of government agencies are public record, Sheriff Joe should have the right to see them. I would be most interested in the emails and internal correspondence of Gov. Abercrombie where claimed he had an investigation seeking Obama’s records and later said he had trouble finding them. I would definitely want to know what the AG office said to Gov. Abercrombie. All of this could be revealed in government emails and internal memos which should be public record.

    • Posted June 9, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      IIRC, Mike Zullo said that the only cooperation they received from HI gov’t was the assistance of local law enforcement. Unfortunately, to get a search warrant they would have to have a judge’s approval, if I’m understanding correctly.

      The internal memos are purged after a certain amount of time. I can’t remember the exact retention period, but I imagine any communications that were done by e-mail have been purged. The typical way to get around any revealing disclosures eventually being made is to do the communications by phone or by private e-mail.

      Like you, I would DEARLY love to know what was communicated between Abercrombie, DOH Director Neal Palafox, the HI AG’s office, etc.

  15. John
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 4:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    It should be noted that MS and Hawaii have produced nothing. The verification itself is meaningless. If you read carefully the lawyer’s letter and Alvin Onaka’s response you will really see that it reveals nothing and proves nothing and is completely vague on point. At best it simply reveals Obama’s BC exists in Hawaii files. The lawyers asked Hawaii to verify the information on the birth certificate released by the White House with that of what Hawaii has. However, they failed to identify what information what they wanted verified and didn’t state that they wanted the BC to be verified in its entirety. This is a key point and argument because the lawyers failed to submit the proper and official form. In the official form found on the Hawaii DOH website, it identifies which elements of the vital record are to verified. In this case, certain information was asked to be verified by Hawaii and Hawaii verified that information. But we have no idea what that information was. The request in itself is too vague to be meaningful.

    This might allow Orly to have cause to cross examine Onaka to determine just what information on the White House BC he verified. Orly can further argue that the White House BC lacks a seal and is a noncertified copy. Although it has been shown that White House BC does contain a seal, it requires special software to alter it to make the seal appear. Such alteration therefore would invalidate the White House BC. Any reasonable person can tell by just looking at the White House BC that there is no seal and is therefore a noncertified copy.

  16. Rosco Jones
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I do have several links that may be of interest here.

    #1 Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate
    http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm
    This also contains many things from BHO’s past that I have never heard before.

    #2 Forms of citizenship chart
    http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/

    #3 President Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama

    Can’t wait to hear Mitt announcing his 2012 Launch of White Americans for Romney

    #4 Senior Elections Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu
    Go to http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1071/ and download the adobe file. Next, go to page 28 first and start reading.

    ““You were in Hawaii. What did you think of the election?”

    The problem was I had been part of the election. I was, for about six months, the Senior Elections Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu. I’d been a manager in the office of absentee balloting, and had seen enough of the events there that I had resigned that September and returned to university instead of staying on until November. I stared down at the well used white cotton tablecloth and saw my reflection next to the green
    beans on my plate. “Well’, I murmured, ‘it was an interesting experience.”
    I should have expected what was coming next, and kept my mouth shut, but I was more than a little pissed off and decided to see what would come of the whole thing.

    “What do people in Hawaii say about Obama’s birth certificate?”

    “There isn’t one” I said.

    From there, it does get interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers

%d bloggers like this: