Onaka Confirms Obama’s BC is Non-Valid

Wheel of Fortune v Family Feud FINAL

I’ve checked the legal reasoning with 3 different attorneys. And as you’ll see, it appears that the attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee understood Onaka’s verification the same way I did…


  1. Royce Latham
    Posted September 2, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Good work Butter. You are like a pit bull. You don’t release or give up. Did you know that there is a birth record copy of Virginia’s birth with the number used by Obama?

    Your fan,


    • Posted September 2, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Whoa! No, I didn’t know that. Where did that come from? What can you tell me?

  2. Carol
    Posted September 3, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Wow Royce. I wonder how many numbers he has. Im still waiting for the so called conservatives in Washington though, to do something about it. I wont hold my breath. Ive come to understand there is a party but all the leadership is globalism on both sides. The rinos in the republican party and Reid and his ilk on the other. So no one the tea party……the realy one, not the hijacked one, picks, they will have no voice because as they showed in the convention…..the teleprompter already tells them what to do. Thank you so much Butter. Ive missed your articles.

    • Posted September 3, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Carol, there is so much to say and so few who are willing to hear it.

      All along the powers-that-be have PRESUMED that Fukino’s statements meant there was a VALID Hawaii BC for Obama. Fukino could worm around with her language and only us crazy people would suggest that she never actually MEANT/SAID that the record was valid. Nobody thought she was actually violating the Federal General False Statement Act by failing to correct a known misperception on a matter that is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. There is no question in my mind that she broke the law by failing to correct the reports which said that she had verified that Obama WAS born in Hawaii. If Onaka couldn’t verify that, then neither could Fukino – and if she obeyed HI law and refused to verify that Obama was born in HI, then she had to be BREAKING federal law by letting the media reports SAY that she HAD verified that as being true.

      All the other critters could claim that Obama was eligible – regardless of what forgeries he had put out there – because, after all, Fukino had verified that he WAS born in Hawaii. Her violation of the Federal General False Statement Act enabled this whole rancid mess.

      Now the process has happened the way it was supposed to. There were questions about Obama’s documentation, the Arizona Tea Party patriots pressured Ken Bennett to get a LEGAL document that simply says what the status of the record really is. Onaka disclosed that the record isn’t legally valid.

      It’s right out there for the whole world to see. But we can’t get anybody to listen.

      In the next couple weeks we are going to need the biggest megaphone we can possibly come up with, so that the LEGAL implications of Onaka’s disclosure are made absolutely clear to the people who hid behind Fukino’s violation of the Federal General False Statement Act until now, and let them know that we will hold their feet to the fire in every way we possibly can – and if they commit crimes (such as perjury, fraud, misprision of perjury or fraud, subornation of perjury or fraud, etc) in order to slide Obama through this time, we will shout until the whole world knows they are raping us, raping the rule of law, and raping the US Constitution.

      If they refuse to act on this legal disclosure, we ARE being raped by the HDOH, the DNC and its lawyer, Obama himself, the state democratic parties, the state SOS’s, federal law enforcement at every level, and the state AG’s – in full sight of everyone, and it’s time for us to make some holy noise about it.

      The Old Testament says if a woman is raped in town and doesn’t scream for help then she shares responsibility because of her failure to scream so that the men of the town could come and rescue her. If she screams out in the open and nobody is there to hear her, she did what she could and the full responsibility is on the rapist. If she screams in town and the men of the town won’t come to her aid, those men share the responsibility.

      We need to scream to the above-mentioned people, and if they will not come to our aid, then God will hold them responsible, and His vengeance will be worse than anything you or I could ever do to them.

      This is not a political issue. It is a law enforcement issue. This has nothing to do with the campaign of Romney. This is between us and the people within the system who are supposed to make sure we are not defrauded and the Constitution is not trampled. If we flood these people with the truth, and insist that they act upon it, that is between us and them. what they do about it is is theirs to decide – but they need to know that we are watching, and God is watching.

  3. Carol
    Posted September 3, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just like when Obama first got into office. Remember. A memo was leaked that older people and vets were possible terror suspects? A bunch of complaints occurred and then the answer back was, that was not supposed to be leaked. Not that it was a lie….just that we werent supposed to see that. When will people really look at what is actually being said?

    • Posted September 3, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Hopefully soon. Hopefully we’ll learn to listen for what IS said, and for what is NOT said.

      • Slick Sleeves
        Posted September 9, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

        Dead on ButterDZ. As many will recall. Sherlock Holmes supposedly once solved a case because, “The dog did not bark”. And, as the wise Rev. Jesse Jackson once observed, “A half-truth is a WHOLE lie.” Lying and perjury can be commited by deliberate “omission” of relevant facts – just as easily as stating a outright falsehood.

        I can think of two possible – highly probable – reasons that Dr. Onaka CAN NOT Certify that the photcopy of Obama’s alleged Long Form BC posted on line IS an “Accurate and True Representation” of the document on file at HIDoH. First, as BDZ suspects, the records on file probably carry the revealing and damning notation, “AMENDED”. The online Forgery does NOT indicate Amended. A second distinct possibility is that Onaka knows that a Fake COLB was created and inserted into the HIDoH files, in lieu of the original (incomplete) information that was once on hand.

        Finally, I am highly troubled by the fact that Dr. Onaka’s (non certification) Certification was NOT signed by him – despite knowing how highly visible it would be. Instead, his rubber stamp – followed by the initials “gK” – strongly suggests that he is seeking “plausible deniability”. “Hey, I Did NOT sign that.” dontcha know?

      • Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        The signature and certifying statement are identical on both. This appears to be how they do the certification on a letter of verification, as a standard form. The differences, though, are the initials and whether or not a raised seal was applied. I agree with you that Onaka was trying to distance himself from Bennett’s verification, by having it known that somebody else applied the name stamp to that document. If the certification was done through the authority of Onaka’s office, though, it is presumed to be regular – especially since Onaka did not issue a clarification or send a different verification to replace this one as inaccurate.

  4. starbeau
    Posted September 5, 2012 at 1:49 am | Permalink | Reply


    Can you point me to Onaka’s statement that Obama’s BC is not valid?

    If the Sec. Of State of Arizona knew of such a statement from Onaka, why did he place Obama on the Arizona ballot? I read the letters back and forth with Hawaii and I know that he indicated some problems.

    If there is a copy of Virgina Sunahara’s BC with the same number as Obama’s, I would like to have a copy of that also.



    • Posted September 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The confirmation is in what he DIDN’T say. If the record Onaka looked at was valid, he would have to verify the truth of ALL of the facts submitted to him. What he actually did is verify that there is a record and that x,y, and z are claimed on that record. The only lawful reason for him to not verify the actual facts from the verification application as required by law (certify that this was how the actual birth happened) is if he CAN’T verify those facts because they are not claimed on a legally-valid record.

      Onaka verified that the claims on the WH image are also on the document they have, so the only reason he couldn’t verify them as how the birth actually happened is because the record itself is not legally valid.

      And it is clear to me that the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee understood what Onaka actually verified as well, because they only asked Onaka to verify things that he COULD verify even with a legally non-valid BC (that they have a record, and that the claims on the WH BC are the same as the claims on the non-valid record at the HDOH).

      When Butterdezillion, Larry Klayman, and the lawyers for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee all interpret a response the same way, you know it’s got to be true. lol

  5. John
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 3:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    Alvin Onaka is very slick and was able to hoodwink Ken Bennett good. Bennett specifically asks Onaka if the White House BC is a “True and Accurate Representation”. However, Onaka responds the information only “Matches”. Onaka never verifies the White House BC as a “True and Accurate Representation” which what Bennett wanted not that information simply “Matches”. Likewise the lawyers in MS didn’t do any better. They asked if the information “Matches” which Onaka verifies that it “Matches”. This wording in terms is critical because on the White House BC, the Onaka stamp specifically says the BC is a “a true copy or abstract”. The fact that Onaka would not verify the White House BC is a “True and Accurate” as specified by Bennett (Not that it simply matched) is very troubling.

    • Slick Sleeves
      Posted September 9, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Mr. Bennett was NOT “hoodwinked”. Dr. Onaka gave him a “fig leaf”, to cover his butt. And, he took it. This proves that A. G. Eric Holder was correct when he asserted on national TV, “We are a nation of cowards !!!”

      Before I get too tough on Mr. Bennett, however, we must remember that numerous Judges have done over-night flips, and some have even produced idiotic opinions about the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”.

      It is fightening. The Clintons are ruthless “politicians”; whatever scared them out of race had to be very potent and powerful ???

      • Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

        Think Breitbart. He drop-down died less than 5 hours after telling Sheriff Joe Arpaio that Arpaio’s evidence was good and that he was glad Arpaio was going to inform the public about this.

        Same day as the Arpaio presser.

        Same day as Rush Limbaugh had a bomb scare involving references to assassinations.

        Same day as Breitbart.com, Rush Limbaugh, and all the media ignored the evidence presented by a law enforcement body announcing a criminal investigation involving the supposed President’s records.

    • Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:28 am | Permalink | Reply

      An irritating lie of the left is that the Hawaiian officials have validated or verified the authenticity of the fake PDF Birth Certificate that the White House posted on its website, when in fact such a view is totally ignorant of what true verification is.
      No statement by any official in the land is an official certified statement unless it is made under penalty of perjury, under solemn oath or as a person with the authority to issue notarized documents. Everything else is just partisan hacks passing wind in the unquestioning faces of the sycophantic main-stream media or inquiring state official.
      No Hawaiian official has been called before a Congressional hearing or federal court or grand jury and required to swear under oath as to the facts known about the true records of Obama’s birth. So their lies are completely beyond prosecuting and they know it, just as they know that the rubber-stamp signature on birth certificates of either type actually certifies nothing because they are not in fact a signature but merely counterfeit replications of a signature.
      Imagine this, Alvin Onaka releases to the public an “official statement” certifying that the rubber stamp signature of his that is used to certify vital records is the True and authentic signature from his hand, and that statement is then “certified” by the rubber-stamped signature.

      Such an official state government release would be a double bastardization of true certification since it would contain a falsehood, -and be “certified” by a counterfeit of his signature.
      Anything that is not genuine is a counterfeit, like a photocopy of real paper currency. And the current Hawaiian birth certificates are not backed by the gold of genuineness since the “copy” is not really a copy of anything because it is instead only an “abstract” compound of information uncertified by any real signature nor by a proper metal dye-cast, sculptor-crafted state seal.
      We live in an age in which authenticity is an inconvenience because it requires time and effort, which the lazy liberals that run bureaucracies no longer possess.

  6. Slick Sleeves
    Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:15 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butter, may God bless you for your tenacity, bravery, and patriotism. I am very frustrated that EVERYBODY seems terrified to act. Surely, everybody in DC must know that we have a Usurper in office. Therefore, I have concluded that whoever is backing this fraud must be very powerful, or must have potent Blackmail info on a lot of people. Either that, or credible Death Threats have been made. Too many Judges have made over-night flips.

    • Posted September 9, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Mike Zullo has confirmed that the media was threatened. And the Hillary folks have said that top dems told them that the Clintons were threatened – specifically that Chelsea was in danger, a warning known not to be in vain because the 2 people who agreed to present a petition at the 2008 Convention to challenge Obama’s eligibility were successively killed within a 2-week time period right before the convention.

      Lawrence Sellin told Mark Gillar about a verbal exchange at a campaign rally for one of the R contenders. Somebody asked that contender why nobody will address the eligibility problem, and the contender responded that nobody will address it because the issue goes deeper than anybody knows.

      The problem for Soros is that if he has to threaten every state AG and SOS, as well as every local sheriff, etc….. he’ll be unable to keep his true colors hidden to the voters. That’s why the real action is to be done right now, right where concerned citizens are. We peons are the only ones left who really CAN do anything about this. We need to apply pressure to our state and local law enforcement entities. They live among us and know full well that they answer to us. They can’t all be threatened or bribed, and they will be the heroes of this great nation.

  7. Paul Marko
    Posted April 12, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Am unable to follow your reasoning concerning Onaka’s verification response (Exibit C), to SOS Bennets’ inquiry (Exibits A & B) that Onaka indirectly confirms Obama’s BC is non-valid. Your response to Starbeau, Sept. 5, 2012, stating it’s what Onaka didn’t say that invalidates the claim what he did state was not legally-true.
    Obviously SOS Bennett accepted the verification to the inquiry, since the letter was on a pre-printed letter head stating Verification of Birth, and the term verify was employed three additional times.
    The form does not specify, or state the term legally-true verification of birth, therefore can you specify what Onaka should have said, and what terms should he have used in response to legally-verify the letter if Obama’s actual/real/authentic/original BC existed on file?

    • Posted April 12, 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If he was verifying what the media CLAIMS he verified he should have said, “I, Alvin Onaka, verify that there is a legally valid birth certificate on file with the Department of Health for Barack Hussein Obama, II, and that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.

      I also verify that the following items are included on the birth certificate:

      ………… (insert here the stuff that Bennett asked him to verify “from the BC”)

      Additionally, I verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama (included as page 2 of this verification) is a true and accurate representation of the original record in the Department of Health files.”

      Does that help? Let me know if this still doesn’t make sense. Onaka never actually verified any of the facts of birth that Bennett asked him to verify on the verification application, never said WHAT he verified about the items Bennett listed in his letter (whether he was verifying their TRUTH or just that they were CLAIMED on the BC), and he never verified that the attached copy was a true and accurate representation of the original record. If what they had in their office was legally valid he would have had to do ALL of that in his response.

      • Paul Marko
        Posted April 13, 2013 at 2:55 am | Permalink

        Thank you. Your conclusion is valid if a specific worded legal response is required under regulated guidelines to an inquiry of a valid BC. If not, a question of validity could be raised on each and every response variation using the Verification of Birth letter head. Responses by Mr. Onaka revealing legal inconsistencies would afford him a shelter from consequences.

      • Posted April 13, 2013 at 3:56 am | Permalink

        It’s not that there has to be a certain wording, but he has to actually verify the items he was requested to verify, and not just that there is a birth certificate or a certificate that makes the same claims. If the BC that makes the claims is non-valid it is still a BC and the existence of that BC still has to be verified. But the facts themselves cannot be verified in that instance, because only a judge or court can determine the birth facts when the record is non-valid (late and/or altered). People who have a legitimate legal interest have the right to know if there is a record of ANY kind (valid OR non-valid), as well as whether the claims on that record are legally-established. The statute doesn’t stipulate that the birth certificate whose existence is to be verified must be VALID.

        Suppose, for instance, that a Barack Hussein Obama, II, had a Washington birth certificate claiming Aug 4, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama – and in a lawsuit it came to the opposing lawyer’s attention that he also had a Hawaii birth certificate also, claiming the same birthdate and parents but claiming to be born in Hawaii. That lawyer has a legal interest in knowing whether there is a Hawaii birth certificate AND whether that birth certificate is legally valid. If Hawaii took that request and wouldn’t verify ANYTHING because the HI BC was non-valid, it would look like there wasn’t a record for him at all in Hawaii. But the fact that there was another claim made – with affidavits saying he was born in Hawaii – would be crucial evidence for Washington to know also, because it calls into question the claims on the Washington birth certificate.

        In that event, the HDOH would need to verify that there is a birth certificate on file for that person (who claims to have been born on Aug 4 to SAD and BHO) but NOT verify any of the facts of birth – which would be the giveaway that the record is non-valid.

        And that’s what Onaka did in the Bennett verification.

        A verification of the birthdate is certification that that was when the birth occurred. A verification of the gender is certification that the child was born that gender. A verification of the birthplace is certification that that’s where the child was born. Etc. There’s no such thing as a generic verification. There is a verification of the existence of a record and there is verification of the specific birth facts. Verification of the existence of a record is not the same thing as verification of any particular birth fact. That’s why the statute says the DOH shall issue a verification of the existence of a birth certificate AND any other fact pertaining to the birth that is requested to be verified. Those are two different things, and the illustration above shows why that is necessary.

      • Paul Marko
        Posted April 13, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        Reviewed detective Mike Zullo’s affidavit filed in Grinols et al where he stated he was denied access to birth files at both the HDOH and Kapiolani hospital, and now fully understand the reason. Originally thought Onaka had to be fabricating that a birth certificate existed on file, and could possibly suffer criminal consequences to state otherwise. Also unaware SOS Bennett did not request a legal opinion concerning Onaka’s response. Thanks again.

    • ksdb
      Posted April 13, 2013 at 5:26 am | Permalink | Reply

      Paul, Bennett said he didn’t even read the letter of verification. All he wanted was a paper trail as CYA so he could make a “safe” decision and pass the buck. He was shocked that Hawaii didn’t respond right away and that he was forced to jump through unnecessary hoops to get a basic verification. In the meantime, the HI DOH tried to figure out a way to make the verification look complete and compelling. But if you understand the basic rules of evidence, a certified record has to be verified as “correct” by the caretaker of the record. Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. went out of his away to avoid doing this, plus he did NOT verify all the information that was requested. Again, Bennett didn’t care.

  8. gorefan
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. went out of his away to avoid doing this, plus he did NOT verify all the information that was requested.”

    Not true. On the Bennett verification Dr. Onaka verified that all the information on the White House pdf matches the information on the original BC on file at the DOH. That information would include the name of the child, the date of birth, the place of birth, the sex of child, and the mother and father names.

    Butterdezillion’s speculation on how a verification should read is just that – speculation. We have seen three certified verifications and all three refer to the President Obama’s birth certificate. Unless and until someone produces additional verifications from other Hawaiian BCs we can only speculate as to what a standard verification looks like.

    My speculation is that a certified verification only verifies the vital event. Here is how the Hawaii statue for verifications reads:

    §338-14.3 (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.

    What were the facts as stated by SoS Bennett – that the name on the certificate is Barack Hussein Obama, II, that the sex is male, that the DOB is August 4, 1961, that the place of birth is Honolulu, Oahu, that mother’s name is Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, that the father’s name is Barack Hussein Obama. Those facts are on the application form.

    In addition, Dr. Onaka verified “other information that the applicant” provided. The use of the term “other information” distinguishes it from the information contained on the application form because it is the information on the application form that allows Dr. Onaka to find the record of the vital event.

    The fact that Dr. Onaka issued a “Verification of Birth” is verification that the “facts of the event are as stated by the applicant [SoS Bennett]”.

    If those facts were not accurate [same as on the original BC], he could not issue any verification.

    • Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I never said those facts weren’t the same as on the application. The facts claimed on the verification request form were the same as the facts claimed on the fabricated BC that was created at the request of law enforcement. They just aren’t prima facie evidence because the record they’re contained in is non-valid.

      Consider the situation that I gave before – where somebody has a BC from Washington and a non-valid BC from Hawaii. A lawsuit comes up where the Washington BC is in question and the lawyer, having heard that this person also claimed a Hawaii birth, asks for a verification from Hawaii. They want it verified whether or not there is a Hawaii birth certificate for this person (the first thing the statute says must be verified on request) AND whether, on the basis of that birth certificate, Hawaii can legally say that the person really WAS born in Hawaii (which is the “AND any other information that the applicant provides to be verified”).

      How would Hawaii verify that for the lawyer – verify the existence of the record without verifying that the facts are true. How would a lawyer be able to find out if a non-valid BC exists for somebody, so that competing birth claims can be measured against each other?

      BTW, how was Obama able to get a BC without completing an application saying what his birth facts were? How were they able to “find” his BC without being first given all those facts, so they would know WHICH Barack Hussein Obama’s record was being requested?

      • gorefan
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 12:24 am | Permalink

        “I never said those facts weren’t the same as on the application. ”

        I know that, I was actually posting that for ksdb who said that Dr. Onaka “did NOT verify all the information that was requested.” In fact, Dr. Onaka did verify all the information that was requested.

        “verify the existence of the record without verifying that the facts are true”

        I am never quite sure what you mean by “verifying that the facts are true”. How can Dr. Onaka certify that it is true that Barack Obama was the father? All he or any registrar can verify is that the they have a BC on file and the information on that BC. Whether the information is true or not is impossible for the registrar to know unless he happened to be in the delivery room.

        “how was Obama able to get a BC without completing an application”

        That is an absolutely silly statement. After almost five years and at least four lawsuits, the DOH would know exactly which BC he was referring to. But that brings me back to my original point. What would a standard certified verification look like? Not one of the three unique verifications that were produced for a very special circumstance. What would Joe Blow’s verification look like? We do not know what the format for a verification would be if Joe Blow sent in just an application or how it would it look if he put down the wrong parent’s names or DOB.

        Everything we say about the format for a verification is pure speculation based on three unique verifications involving the same vital event. Produce some other certified verifications for other individuals, then we can start to get an idea of how they actually should read.

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 2:41 am | Permalink

        There is no such thing as just a generic “verification”. There is only a verification OF SOMETHING. The statute says a verification of the existence of a record has to be provided to a qualified requestor. And a verification of whatever else is submitted for verification has to be provided, with the caveat that it has to be certifiable as the way the event actually happened.

        The statute makes it clear that there are two kinds of verification that happen – verification of the existence of a record, and verification of facts.

        A verification of the facts is certification that the claimed fact is the way the birth actually happened.

        A verification of the existence of a record is certification that a record exists.

        This isn’t rocket science.

        Onaka verified the existence of a record. That says nothing about whether the record is valid. The facts from the application can only be verified if the record is valid. The other list that Bennett submitted came with the instructions “FROM THE RECORD” so Onaka could verify that those are on the record (if the record is non-valid) or he could verify that those are the way it really happened (if the record is valid). He never says which he is doing. He never says WHAT he is verifying about those things.

        But he never mentions a date, a gender, an island of birth, a mother’s name, or a father’s name. WHY NOT?

        And you still didn’t answer the question of how they would respond to a request for a verification of a non-valid record. The statute says they have to verify the existence of a record, and it doesn’t distinguish between valid and non-valid records in that requirement. So they have to verify that a record exists even if the record is non-valid. How would they do that?

        Obama did not obey the rules to apply for a certified copy of his birth certificate. All he gave was a name. You try getting a birth certificate from the HDOH by giving only a name. Even if that is the only person in their records with a given name, they won’t give you a birth certificate with just a name. So do they require you to fill in all the stuff on the application, or not? They sure as heck didn’t require Obama to, so are they bending the requirements just for him, or is the application form just so they can locate the correct record? Which is it?

      • gorefan
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 4:37 am | Permalink

        “There is no such thing as just a generic “verification”. There is only a verification OF SOMETHING.”

        Right and if Miki Booth requested a verification of her son’s vital record, she would receive a statement that the vital record exists. But it would not include the items she included on the application. The verification that the records exists is verification of the items used to find that verification. The statute would not need to include the words “any other” if they meant every fact the applicant asked requested had to be verified separately. They would have just said “and the information the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.” Had SoS Bennett only sent in the application without asking for the “other” information, he would have gotten a single sentence, we verify that a record exists for Barack Obama II.


        “A verification of the facts is certification that the claimed fact is the way the birth actually happened.”

        There is no way that Dr. Onaka can certify that the facts is the way the “birth actually happened.” Forget President Obama, Dr. Onaka could not make such a certification for any BC.


        “so Onaka could verify that those are on the record (if the record is non-valid) or he could verify that those are the way it really happened (if the record is valid).”

        The mother’s name, father’s name, etc. are on the record. He verified that they are on the record. He says that he verifies that all the items on the pdf match all the items on the original record. So there is nothing that would have prevented him from listing the application items along with the hospital name, certification number, etc. Unless he already figures that he verified the items on the application by verifying it’s existence.


        “But he never mentions a date, a gender, an island of birth, a mother’s name, or a father’s name. WHY NOT?”

        They are indirectly verified by the just the statement we have a record on file.


        “And you still didn’t answer the question of how they would respond to a request for a verification of a non-valid record.”

        I assume it would look like any other verification. How would they respond to an adopted child’s BC? And we also don’t know how they would respond to an application that had the wrong DOB or parent’s names. The fact is our entire knowledge of verifications is limited to three verification, all for the same vital event and all being extremely unique in there approach.


        “Obama did not obey the rules to apply for a certified copy of his birth certificate. All he gave was a name.”

        Rich, famous or powerful people often have the rules bent for them. It may not be fair but it is the way the world has worked since time immemorial.

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

        You’re not comprehending the whole notion of what the HDOH does. They store records. Upon request by qualified applicants they have to disclose information about the records they store.

        The law says what records are considered prima facia evidence (where the claims are presumed to be true according to legal evidentiary principles) and which records require further evidentiary analysis to determine what really happened. Specifically, the law says that BC’s completed a year or more after the birth require more evidentiary analysis, unless they are Certificates of Hawaiian Birth, which were originally issued by the state lieutenant governor using evidentiary standards and at least one public hearing. Those are considered to have ALREADY been determined as probative by an administrative official. And specifically, the law says that if the BC is marked as “ALTERED” it is suspect. The Administrative Rules lay out what kind of changes have to be marked as ALTERED, and they are big deals. These are not typos. They are changes that call into question how anybody honest could have claimed both things they’ve tried to claim.

        A person who deserves to know what records exist needs to be able to find out ALL the records that exist for a person – both valid and non-valid.

        To find which John Smith the applicant is asking about, they need to know further details. If they have a record which matches the facts submitted they have to verify the existence of the record. That says nothing about the validity of the record; it only says that it exists. It is a verification of the existence of the record. They have to disclose the EXISTENCE regardless of whether the record itself is valid or non-valid.

        Are you following this so far?

      • gorefan
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        “If they have a record which matches the facts submitted they have to verify the existence of the record. That says nothing about the validity of the record; it only says that it exists.”

        Where in 338-14 does it say that the registrar is suppose to verify if the record is legally valid or invalid?

        He verified the existence of the record and the information on the record.

        If Miki Booth requested a verification for her son Alan, she would receive the a statement that the record of a birth in Hawaii exists. It wouldn’t say true or accurate copy. Even if she specifically asked for those words.

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        Verifying submitted facts is verifying that they are made on a valid record. That is something different than verifying that they HAVE a record of some kind. That is why the statute distinguishes between the two kinds of verification.

        When they verify the existence of a record they are not verifying anything except the existence of a record that makes the claims that are submitted.

        When they verify the facts they are verifying that they are claimed on a valid record.

        Onaka verified the existence of a record with those claims. He did not verify any of the birth facts submitted on the application. IOW, he verified the existence of a record that is not legally valid.

      • Posted April 15, 2013 at 3:47 am | Permalink

        Gorefan, the way that you are saying verifications are done flies right in the face of the HDOH website page which describes what is meant by the 2 types of verification. At http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html it says:

        “Letters of Verification

        Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

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

        The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.”

        This confirms what I’ve been saying. The existence of the record is one thing that can/must be verified. Examples of “ANY OTHER INFORMATION” that will also be verified include the very things that are on the application itself (place and date). Verification of stuff like place and date is separate and distinct from verification of the existence of a record.

        Notice the example of verification of “other information” includes that so-and-so WAS born in a certain place on a certain date. Not that those claims match what is on the record. That the person WAS born in that way. It is a certification that those are the legally-determined facts of the birth.

        Furthermore, if the possibility even EXISTS for them to disclose something that was unknown to the applicant in the request, then the verification has to involve mentioning specific facts and not just saying (basically) “What you said is correct.”

        That page blows away everything you’ve been claiming and affirms what I’ve been saying. And it’s straight from the HDOH’s mouth.

    • Paul Marko
      Posted April 14, 2013 at 1:42 am | Permalink | Reply

      Isn’t it apparent that beyond the interpretations of Mr. Onaka’s response to the legality of Obama’s BC, that an attempt from detective Mike zullo, authorized and representing an entity with jurisdictional authority, having been refused access to personally inspect Obama’s birth documents to satisfy and verify requirements of the U.S. Constitution, was in itself unlawful.
      What recourse is available considering lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility
      have previously been dismissed prior to reviewing the evidence? A civil action entered by Orly Taitz, presently being adjudicated in CA Grinols et al, and a criminal investigation by Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse are in progress. Are these the only avenues in motion seeking to reveal the truth concerning Obama’s actual history?

      • gorefan
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 4:03 am | Permalink

        “detective Mike zullo, authorized and representing an entity with jurisdictional authority”

        That is utter nonsense. Zullo and Sheriff Arpiao have no jurisdiction outside of Arizona and maybe not outside of Maricopa County. If he wanted to see the original BC in Hawaii, he would need a court order from a Hawaiian Court. He knows that but his Hawaiian vacation was just political theatre for the rubes.

        And his affidavit is legally worthless. An affidavit can only be about facts he has personal knowledge of. Reading about a fact on the internet does not mean you have personal knowledge of the fact. Again he is well aware of that. He knows or should know that his affidavit is hearsay and could never be introduced as evidence.

        But it plays well with the rubes. BTW, I hear he has set up a new website where rubes can donate money. Have you seen it?

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

        What personal knowledge do you have, on any of these issues?

      • Paul Marko
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        You are correct. Detective Zullo was acting in behalf of an investigation originating in Arizona under the directive of Sheriff Arpaio. His affidavit stated only that he was not allowed to personally inspect the HDOH birth file, and was also denied access to Kapiolani hospital’s records that would confirm whether Obama’s mother was listed as a maternity patient. Was unaware of Detective Zullo’s website. Will view.

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

        What’s doubly ironic is that disclosure of even vital records is allowable if necessary to protect a person’s life. And every time somebody in our family sees a doctor we have to sign a consent form to allows our medical records to be shared with law enforcement if necessary to save the life of the President of the USA.

        If Obama’s life was in danger unless he had a Kapiolani BC, why didn’t they just disclose the labor room log from Kapiolani to accomplish the same result? It’s discloseable to the public for a variety of reasons.

        Abercrombie told his friend Mike Evans the reason why: Obama’s mom was not listed as a labor-room patient on those logs.

      • gorefan
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        I’m not filing a sworn affidavit. But if I were, I would never be stupid enough to think that something a saw on the internet or was told by some blogger qualifies as personal knowledge.

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

        So how do you claim to have the “knowledge” that you have? Where did you get it from?

      • Paul Marko
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

        Detective Zullo’s affidavit was filed and included in CA Grinols et al vs. Obama, Congress, and The Electoral College. The affidavit is fourteen pages in length, and contains 68 individually numbered paragraphs pertaining to his investigation of the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, selective service application, and social security number. His statements regarding the lack of cooperation from the HDOH and Kapiolani Hospital are but a minor portion. A copy of the actual affidavit can be viewed or downloaded from the case file. Statements made in reference to the affidavit were not related to an op-ed or bloggers website.

      • gorefan
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 5:45 am | Permalink

        @Paul Marko,

        I would suggest you read the following, it describes in fairly good detail why Zullo’s affidavit is worthless in a court of law.

        BTW, paragraph 19 in the affidavit is absolutely false and was shown to be false several years ago.

      • Paul Marko
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 11:49 pm | Permalink


        Very informative link. Some of the more valuable information was the characterization of Detective Zullo as “blissfully ignorant,” and someone who “ruthlessly plagiarized,” who employed “ambush Investigative” tactics, “hid behind a smoke screen” of other’s work, and was basically “dishonest and incompetent.” And that was just in the introduction.

        The main body of the article was an interesting assessment of every item on the affidavit, followed by a chart that summarizes the conclusions dividing each item appraisal into five categories. Detective Zullo doesn’t fare well in that regard due to the assessment that in most cases he had no personal knowledge, speculated, or received the information in his statements from other sources. And when he did have personal knowledge, it was useless narrative, or a failed conclusion.

        All told, it was a very entertaining article. The most amusing was the authors premise that, “This review was originally intended as a sober critique. Confronted with the magnitude of its dishonesty and incompetence, a purely professorial tone became impossible to maintain. Zullo’s affidavit does not deserve to be merely exposed; it also deserves to be laughed at. I will try to keep the chuckling down for the most part.”

        His professional tone obviously requires some remedial effort.

    • ksdb
      Posted April 14, 2013 at 4:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      Gorefan, you’re making an assumption that is not true. Bennet asked if the copy of the birth certificate was a ‘true’ copy. This was not verified. He submitted the DOH’s standard request form with information contained therein that was NOT verified. You’re making the case for me by quoting the law because it says that the the verification is of the facts “AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT.” The “facts” on the standard form were NOT verified in the letter. Saying that they have a record on file with information that matches an images has no legal meaning. And Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. says NOTHING in the letter of verification to Bennett that ALL the facts were verified. And further, there’s nothing in the law that says they can’t issue a verification if facts are not accurate. The part about the “other information” only being used to find the record is nonsense. Plus, it ignores that Bennett specifically asked for the information on the standard form to be verified. And further yet, Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. uses separate terminology to describe the records that were used to “verify” different “facts” in the letter. IOW, he cites TWO different records, not one.

      • gorefan
        Posted April 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

        “Bennet asked if the copy of the birth certificate was a ‘true’ copy. This was not verified.”

        Please provide me with a link to a Hawaiian verification for someone other than President Obama, then maybe we can say what verifications are suppose to say or how they are suppose to look.

        “And Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. says NOTHING in the letter of verification to Bennett that ALL the facts were verified.”

        So you are saying that there is a difference between Dr. Onaka saying,

        ‘I verify that the hospital name is Kapiolani’


        ‘I verify that the information in box 6c on the White house pdf matches the information in box 6c on the original record in the DOH files.’

        That is nonsense. Those two sentences mean the same thing. There is no secret code or dictionary that transform the meaning of the word “matches” to mean anything other than box 6c on the pdf and on the original record both say Kapiolani.

        So when Dr. Onaka says,

        “Additional, I verify that the information on the copy of the Certification of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attach with your request matches the original record in our file.”

        He says unequivocally that on the original record in the DOH the entries in box 1a, 1b and 1c is Barack Hussein Obama, II, in box 2 is male, in box 5a is August 4, 1961, in box 6a and 6b is Honolulu, Oahu, in box 8 is Barack Hussein Obama, and in box 13 is Stanley Ann Dunham.

        Or are you saying that “August 4, 1961” matches “July 19, 1963”?

      • Posted April 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        Why would he not say “is identical to”, as requested by KS SOS Kris Kobach?

      • ksdb
        Posted April 15, 2013 at 4:45 am | Permalink

        gorefan, such a statement about the birth record being “correct” would then verify that it complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence (also the same rules of evidence used by most states) regarding documents that would or should be ‘self-authenticating.’ This language is also consistent with a registrar’s standard certification statement that goes on typical vital records, and it makes sense that a secretary of state would ask for that fact to be authenticated. Remember, the law in Hawaii says that the verification is for the “facts as stated by the applicant.” Here’s what the FRE says:

        “(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:

        (A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification;”

        Also, you’re not being honest about Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D.’s verifcation letter. He doesn’t say anything about specific information matching boxes 6c, 1a, 1b …etc. His statement is legally ambigous because it doesn’t specify what information matches. If it did, what’s the point in itemizing the other information that was specifically stated in the request??

      • gorefan
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 5:48 am | Permalink

        “Why would he not say “is identical to”, as requested by KS SOS Kris Kobach?”

        He is not required to use the language that the applicant suggests..

        BTW, in a TV interview SoS Kobach said the issue was over because the information “matched”. If he doesn’t see an issue with the language, why do you?

      • Posted April 17, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

        “Identical” and “matches” are not the same thing. Just like “true and accurate representation” and “information matches” are not the same things. It’s not just semantics. There are real differences, and he is required to verify the SUBSTANCE he was given to verify, if he can. He would not. Not in the DOB, gender, etc, nor in the certification of the authenticity of the White House image.

        The information on one counterfeit matches the information on another counterfeit, so “matches” is a moot issue. Why do I care about this and Kobach doesn’t? Well, I care about this because truth matters to me. You’d have to ask Kobach why it doesn’t to him. Could have something to do with the threats that got the original ballot challenger to withdraw the challenge…. Or it could have something to do with being on Mitt Romney’s team, like Bennett was…

      • gorefan
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 6:05 am | Permalink

        The Birth certificate itself is stamped that it Is a true copy of the original. It was the copy he made. The DOH did not make the pdf which may be why he can’t legal say it is a true copy.

        He says the information matches, he doesn’t exclude any of the information.

        Yes, he is redundant in verifying the specific information and then all the information collectively. That’s what SoS Bennett requested.

      • Posted April 17, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink

        The authenticating stamps (Onaka’s certifying statement and signature) are proven to have been imported into the PDF from a different document. Why did they have to do that? That does not happen from a mere scan of a document; that was blatant manipulation. Why did they have to do that instead of just scanning the “true copy or abstract” that Onaka gave them?

        And as for redundancy, apparently you haven’t yet read the statement on the HDOH website that I provided, which explains that verification of specific items (such as DOB and place) are separate from the verification of the existence of the record. If a specific item is being verified it has to be specifically mentioned in the verification. They stipulate that they will not introduce new information in the verification, which is only even a possibility if they specifically say the exact facts they are verfying.

        They never said they verified a DOB, gender, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name. They verified the existence of a record and the existence of certain claims on the non-valid record they have.

      • gorefan
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

        I disagree with you on this. The verification of the existence of a record is verification of the items listed on the application form since those were the items used to locate the exact vital record. On SoS Bennett’s verification, why did Dr. Onaka verify the name on certificate and the city of birth but not the sex? It is not a coincidence that the items not verified are the items from the application. They are verified implicitly since they were necessary to finding the one record that matched those items.

        Consider this:

        John Smith was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on July 4th 1964, his father is John Smith and his mother is Louise May.

        He sends in a request for a verification but only puts in his name and nothing else. Will he get a letter that says “We cannot verify the event”? or one that says “We do not have enough information to verify the event”?

        But enough of that topic, I doubt without additional evidence neither of us will change are minds.

        I noticed this document of yours.

        Click to access guthrie-seal-v-l-seal.pdf

        On the “L” COLB is the seal raised on the side where the vital statistics are printed? If so then this is a debossed seal because you can clearly see that the writing in the seal is printed normally on the side (back of COLB) where Dr. Onaka’s stamp is. Does that mean that a different stamp was used for the seal on the document photographed by Savannah Guthrie? Dr. Onaka’s stamp is on the same side as the vital statistics.

        Is “L” someone who could apply for a verification for her COLB?

      • Posted April 17, 2013 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

        The HDOH says on their own site that particular birth facts are examples of “any other information” that will be verified in addition to the existence of the record. They say they will not verify specific facts that are not already submitted by the applicant, which is only even a possibility if they verify the requested facts individually and verbally.

        I’ll let you in on a little secret, gorefan. The HDOH has been flying by the seat of their pants on how they do stuff since they’ve had to try to cover up Obama’s problems and know that people are watching and ready to report the discrepancies. And it’s not just by letting Obama request a BC copy without filling out an application. When the time is right I’ll let you know more about that.

        So, as to how they would answer the “John Smith” request, that might depend on what narrative they were trying to match at the time, like it has with other folks’ requests.

        For instance, Janice Okubo told me that they don’t issue letters of verification; they just send out a non-certified COLB. That was when I had asked for the forms used – this particular form that the verifications are on, which is not found in the records database that the HDOH was required to file with the OIP – and was told there were no records responsive to my request. So which is true? Do they give letters of verification and have a form that was established in 2001 for that purpose? Or do they just give out non-certified COLB’s (which, BTW, the Administrative Rules say ANY PERSON is authorized to see for another person)? You tell me. Take your pick between 3 or 4 different lies that the HDOH told depending on whatever narrative they thought they needed to push that day.

        My whole point is that we need some truth, and the ONLY way we’re going to get it is by seeing non-fudgeable records, because this HDOH lies, fabricates, falsifies, obfuscates, breaks laws, and contradicts itself with every breath it takes.

        The seal on the Guthrie photo is too vague for anything to be known about it except its size, which is not normal for a photograph. It is also a different size than either Onaka’s seal or Fuddy’s seal. It was a hastily-improvised 3D shape because Bauer didn’t expect there to be any problem with what Judy Corley brought back from Hawaii. Bauer underestimated somebody honest at the HDOH.

      • gorefan
        Posted April 18, 2013 at 1:03 am | Permalink

        My guess is they very rarely issue verifications. I’d bet the SoS Bennett verification is the first they have issued in years. In most cases, people would just give employers, or whoever a copy of their COLB. That’s one of the reasons I don’t think that one can read much into the language of the verifications.

      • Posted April 18, 2013 at 2:02 am | Permalink

        The law is still the law. They were required to verify all of those items from the request application if they could, and they would not. The best Obama could hope for in a legal sense is that Bennett’s verification is not lawful because of the certification issues with it, but even at that it would end up meaning that Onaka was asked to give a certified verification of Obama’s birth facts and he never would.

        But Obama doesn’t go for the legal sense. His whole schtick is that it’s nobody’s business so nobody can do anything about it anyway. If we as a nation are stupid enough to buy that, then we deserve to have a foreign enemy combatant in our White House. Pathetic.

      • ksdb
        Posted April 18, 2013 at 5:31 am | Permalink

        @gorefan, you’re not absorbing a key point here. Wouldn’t it be expected that a counterfeit document might contain a recreation of a stamp that say it’s a “true copy”?? So if an official wants to verify it’s really a “true copy,” that official would specifically request that information in a letter of verification. The law in Hawaii says that such a letter verifies the existence of a record and the facts “as stated by the applicant.” The absence of a verification of any fact therein means the record is not comprehensively verified as being correct.

        When Bennett stated a request of whether the alleged birth certificate was a true copy, Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. punted on giving this information. When KS SOS Kobach requested if the record on file was “identical,” Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. punted on giving this information. The rules of evidence say that the custodian of the record must verify that the record is a “correct” copy or else it is only considered to be hearsay in a legal action.

        Yes, both Bennett and Kobach punted when they received letters of verification, but out of political expediency. Bennett said he didn’t even read the letter. And the latter didn’t need his requested letter anymore because the action was withdrawn that he was going to rule on. This let him off the hook, so he could say anything he wanted, but with no legal weight. All they wanted was a paper trail so they could avoid controversy, but Kobach had already admitted the Bennett letter was inconclusive, which was why he requested his own. I’m not sure he would have been able to defend the letter once it was pointed out that it lacked the verification of being a correct copy or being identical to the official record.

      • Posted April 18, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

        Excellent points. And the reason the KS objection was withdrawn was because of threats made to the objector and his family. That’s a thread that runs throughout this issue, and seeing AG Louie hold the threat of a fraud investigation over the head of Neal Palafox should have told everybody what kind of people and what kind of system we’re talking about here. Obama is in the White House right now through the action of “homegrown terrorists”.

        Do you have a link for Bennett saying he didn’t even read the letter? It doesn’t excuse him because he also received a letter from Larry Klayman spelling out the whole thing, but it’s a stunning admission that he who had reminded the world that he is the “cop” in charge of preventing ineligibles from getting on the ballot…. willfully poked out his eyes so he wouldn’t have to see it when it happened. Imagine if the police had been told straight-out that there was going to be a bomb at the finish line of the Boston marathon, and they later boasted that they hadn’t even read the letter telling them that. This is even worse than that. Much more deadly; ask the victims of Fast and Furious and Benghazi (at the very least).

  9. Paul Marko
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 2:10 am | Permalink | Reply

    A poor choice of words. I meant are there any additional legal avenues being pursued?

    • Posted April 14, 2013 at 2:56 am | Permalink | Reply

      It’s been said that some “VIP’s” from CPAC are now aware of the situation and saying they will do something. I don’t know which VIP’s these are, but if they are national Congressional leaders, then I would presume that the measures they are taking involve the possibility of getting an independent federal investigator/prosecutor appointed. If the feds subpoena the records, Hawaii has to comply.

      And that’s the reason that I decided to go public with this series: so these VIP’s would be made aware of why we can’t just assume that the HDOH has been honest with us. There are good reasons why we NEED to see the microfilms, as Arpaio has said. Not just for Obama’s record, but also for these other people, whose BC#’s have been altered.

      This is also why the media had to be threatened. The Obama people NEED the media to ridicule this issue because that’s the way to keep Congress from establishing a federal investigation. Hawaii cannot refuse the subpoenas of a federal investigation. Everything else they can, and do. They can’t do that to the feds. Not unless they want to spend a lot of time in jail for obstruction of justice.

      And independent federal investigation is what we need. That’s what we need to be telling our elected federal officials. We need to point them to the evidence and hold them accountable to it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: