Monthly Archives: September 2012

HDOH Did Not Verify What Kansas Requested

As can be seen at https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf , the Kansas Objection Board asked the Hawaii Department of Health to verify, among other things, that (emphasis added):

“3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf and reviewed by you on the date of your verification, a copy of which is attached to this request, is identical to the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”

In response the HDOH verified that:

“3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”

I’ve highlighted the words that are different between the request and the response. There are the pronouns that change to reflect the person speaking (“you” becomes “me”; “your verification” becomes “this verification”; “to this request” becomes “with your request”). But beyond that, the HDOH changed 2 things of substance:

1. The source link for the copied BC is different.
2. The words “is identical to” are replaced with “matches”.

I don’t know why the link was changed, but some thoughts come to mind. Because the content of websites can change, the important thing for Onaka to review was the copy showing what specific image the request referred to. That’s the only way we know WHAT information “matched”. By putting a different link, Onaka seems to indicate that he didn’t base his verification on the copy he was given OR the site he was told the copy was taken from. If what he saw when he looked at the site he cited was the same as what is at the link now, the two links have the same content, but we have no way of knowing whether that was the case when he looked at it. Citing a different link puts in another degree of separation because the page COULD HAVE BEEN different at the time Onaka looked at it. And having the different link shows right away that Onaka is not verifying exactly what he was asked to verify; he changed it a little bit, adding that degree of separation. An easily-visible red flag. And that may well be the reason for it.

More importantly, the HDOH did not verify that the information in the White House image is “identical to” the information contained in the original BC for Obama. They instead verified something they were not asked to verify: that the information that exists in the White House image MATCHES the information contained in the original BC.

Why refuse to verify that the information “is identical to”, if it can be verified that the information “matches”? What’s the difference between “is identical to” and “matches”?

If the information is identical, whatever exists in one exists in the other, and whatever doesn’t exist in one doesn’t exist in the other. The one is a “true and accurate representation” of the other. It has everything the other has and lacks everything the other lacks. Obviously, “matches” means something different, or there would be no reason to change the language. Most probably “matches” means that information actually contained in the copy matches what the original has for that – but if there is no information in a field on the copy, no comparison is made.

So Kansas did NOT receive the verification they requested. By refusing to verify what was requested, the HDOH verified the opposite: that the information contained in the copy of the White House BC is NOT “identical to” the information contained in the original record at the HDOH.

And we learned that when Onaka says information “matches” he does NOT mean the information on both documents is identical. Onaka will verify that the information in the copy “matches” even if the copy lacks some of the information from the original.

So we’ve got a series of walk-downs. AZ asked Onaka to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and Onaka would not verify that. KS asked him to verify that the information contained in the White House record “is identical to” the information in the original record, and Onaka wouldn’t verify that. In both instances, Onaka instead verified something he was not asked to verify – that the information from the White House image “matched” the information from the original, a verification that can be used even if the White House image is missing some of the information that’s in the original record.

Which is critical, considering that Item 23 is the only item (other than mother’s mailing address) that was left blank in the White House image.

And Item 23 is where evidence for a late filing or alteration is to be listed – evidence that OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama already disclosed exists. And this item alone would reveal that the record is non-valid, which Onaka has already confirmed through the AZ verification. When MDEC submitted their verification to a court they were careful to explain that “information” only means birth facts – which specifically excludes FILING information. IOW, item 23 (as well as the dates of filing, signature, etc). MDEC was thus careful to say that item 23 was NOT asked about in their verification request. Which sure seems to indicate that they knew item 23 was the sticking point – and that they knew they had a legal responsibility to have recognized that on the basis of already-disclosed records (AZ’s verification from Onaka).

Advertisements

SOS’s Need to Obey State Perjury and Fraud Laws

Below is a letter I received from the office of AR SOS Mark Martin. I wanted everyone to see this so I can point out the deflection that the SOS’s will probably try to make. The claim in this letter is that the SOS is not authorized to determine the eligibility of candidates, but only whether they submitted the required paperwork to get on the ballot.

And this is where Onaka’s disclosure is so critical, because Obama’s HI birth record being non-valid means that there are no legally-determined birth facts for Obama, and anybody who files any statement, application, Certification, etc that says Obama is qualified to be President is known to be dead wrong. Nobody can know that, since nobody knows his legally-determined birth facts. That means that every SOS in the country knows that the paperwork they receive for Obama is fraudulent. Every SOS in the country should be writing the Obama campaign and telling them that they have not submitted the proper paperwork because fraudulent documents cannot be accepted.

SOS’s don’t have to determine Obama’s eligibility. They don’t have to even know about the BC forgeries, E-verify failure, draft registration forgery, or passport breaches for Obama. All they need to know is that Hawaii says they don’t have a legally-valid birth record for Obama, so nobody can know when, where, or to whom Obama was born. Anybody who makes a LEGAL claim that they know he is qualified is perjuring him/herself and/or committing election fraud. There is not one SOS in the country who has received proper filing papers for Obama, because all the papers are fraudulent and/or perjurious.

The only authorization these SOS’s need, to keep Obama off the ballot, is perjury and fraud laws that require them to reject known-fraudulent filings. And misprision laws that require them to report known perjury and fraud to law enforcement. These are not heroic measures we are asking these SOS’s to do. We are simply asking them not to engage in election fraud or misprision of the felonies of fraud and perjury.

The SOS’s need to know that their role at this point isn’t about Obama’s eligibility. It is about known-fraudulent filing documents. Please look up your SOS at http://www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_contact_display&Itemid=346 and tell them that it is election fraud and misprision of fraud and perjury if they accept known-fraudulent filing documents as if they were lawful.

State AG’s received Klayman’s Letter

State AG Return Receipts

There are 4 that I need to have the post office check the tracking number for delivery dates. I didn’t receive a return receipt for KS AG Derek Schmidt but the postmistress confirmed that it was delivered on Sept 10th – 2 days after it was mailed.

State Dem Party Chairs Received Klayman’s Letter

State Dem Party Chair Return Receipts

I scanned the tracking numbers for the 8 who didn’t sign receipts. I’ll have the post office confirm delivery dates for those.

Commission on Presidential Debates Received Klayman’s Letter

Commission on Presidential Debates Return Receipts

The first 3 were all sent to the CPD’s office in Washington, DC. They apparently all got wet. I apparently had the wrong address for John Griffen because a personal letter I sent came back as undeliverable. I have redacted the personal addresses for these people to respect their privacy.

The letter they received can be seen at https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

Every State SOS Received Klayman’s Letter

SOS Return Receipts

These are scans of the return receipts showing that every state Secretary of State received a copy of Larry Klayman’s letter to Bob Bauer, explaining that HI registrar Alvin Onaka had confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the HI birth record for Obama is legally non-valid and that any Certification of Nomination would thus be perjurious, since there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama.

To save time and memory, I scanned most of these as black and white, but some of the date stamps were in red or very light and didn’t show up in the scan:
The NJ SOS received the letter on Sept 6th.
The VT SOS received the letter on Sept 4th.
The WV SOS received the letter on Sept 4th.
The NY SOS had no date stamp on it.

When you contact your SOS (contact info can be looked up at http://www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_contact_display&Itemid=346 ) you can let them know the date they received the letter and that they are legally responsible for responding to the information in that letter. They have been notified of legal facts by a lawyer and they cannot claim that they didn’t know this information.

Klayman’s letter can be viewed at https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

An article explaining why the verifications to both the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee (MDEC) and KS SOS Kris Kobach are legally worthless: https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf

Kansas Never Asked if Record Was Valid

Kansas Verification

What KS SOS Kris Kobach asked to be verified was the same thing that MDEC asked to be verified, with the additional verification that the file number on the White House BC be verified.

Mr. Kobach had received a letter from Attorney Larry Klayman on Sept 7th, pointing out that Onaka had confirmed that the HI birth record for Obama is non-valid. And Kobach’s request – like MDEC’s – was specifically designed to allow Onaka to verify what was asked, EVEN WITH A NON-VALID BIRTH RECORD.

IOW, there is NOTHING to contradict Onaka’s earlier confirmation to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the HI record for Barack Obama is legally non-valid – and SOS Kobach knows that full well.

Link to Klayman’s letter, which Kobach received on Sept 7th: https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

An article which helps explain why neither MDEC’s verification nor Kobach’s means anything: https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf

Birth Index List Does Not Indicate Legally Valid Record

Birth Index Includes Nonvalid Records _Documentation Included_

Here’s the documentation that what the HDOH presents to the public as the 1960-64 birth index includes legally non-valid names. The appearance of a name on that list says nothing about the VALIDITY of the person’s record.

Be Careful What You Say, Joan Wagnon

At http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/ it says of KS Dem Party Chair Joan Wagnon :

“But Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman Joan Wagnon called the delay “lunacy.”

“This is absurd and insulting,” she said. “This issue has been resolved — there is no issue.” ”

Joan, we’ve got proof that you received a letter from Attorney Larry Klayman informing you of the legal facts. Anything you say from here on out could incriminate you legally.

Watch your step.

The HDOH Has Juggled BC#’s for at Least 4 1961 BC’s

BC Number Manipulation Analysis

If Okubo’s numbering method was in effect, Obama’s BC# almost certainly originally belonged to Virginia Sunahara.

If Verna K L Lee’s numbering method was in effect, Obama was almost certainly given the BC# that originally belonged to Stig Waidelich, and the HDOH has juggled BC#’s down the line in order to hide that fact – including Virginia’s.

There will be more on this.