Complete Klayman Letter

Complete Klayman Letter to Bauer

I’ve put together the letter signed by Larry Klayman (which can be seen at ) and the enclosures that he referenced in that document (which can be seen at )and I’m posting it here so we have a link that can be used to show people the whole thing. The letter doesn’t make sense without the enclosures/documentation.

This letter was sent to Bob Bauer by courier at 2:27pm EDT on Aug 31, 2012 – six days before Bauer submitted a known-to-be-perjurious Certification of Nomination to the NY Board of Elections.

Copies of the letter have been sent by certified mail to the Commission on Presidential Debates, DNC Executive Committee, State Democratic Party Chairs, State Secretaries of State, and State Attorneys General. So all these people are aware that Mr. Obama CANNOT qualify without first submitting his non-valid birth certificate to a judicial or administrative person or body and having the probative value of the non-valid record determined according to legal evidentiary standards. Until he does that it has to be presumed that he is NOT ELIGIBLE and that any certification saying otherwise is perjurious.

Now we need to let these people know that WE are aware of this reality, and that we are watching what they do, knowing they have to commit crimes themselves in order to pass Obama along as if nothing was wrong.


  1. gorefan
    Posted September 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Klayman lied in his letter.

    Dr. Onaka verified the place of birth for President Obama.

    Item 1 says that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. This is the only piece of information on a birth certificate that is germane to Presidential eligiblity.

    And before you mention “Age of thirty five Years”, President Obama would have been born prior to 1973 to meet that requirement and Dr. Onaka verified that the LFBC was accepted by the local registrar on Aug-8, 1961.

    • Posted September 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      No, Gorefan. Diagram the sentence.

      “I verify the following: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

      All that Onaka himself verifies is that a birth certificate is on file.

      “indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii” is a clause that modifies “birth certificate”. Onaka is giving a description of the birth certificate, not a verification of any birth fact. The only thing that he verifies, other than describing what is on the birth certificate as he does through that clause, the listed items, and the non-verification of “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”, is that there IS a birth certificate.

      The only thing Onaka specifically verifies as true is that a record exists. If the record was VALID he would have to verify the truth of EVERYTHING that was submitted to him, since he verified that the claims all match what is on the actual record they have.

      The date of filing proves nothing if the record is legally non-valid. ALL the claims on a non-valid record are suspect. There could have been an imaginary child who was reported to a registrar on Aug 8, 1961, for all we know. And for all the State of Hawaii knows – which is why Onaka can’t verify ANYTHING except that they have a record that makes some legally-unsubstantiated claims.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 9, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

        How can a state registrar, any state registrar, verify the facts are true? He was not present at the birth. All a state register can certify or verify is that the information on a certified copy of a birth certificate matches their record on file.

        In fact, what Dr. Onaka verified is that they have on file a birth certificate that matches the six items listed on the verification form plus any additional information that may need to be verified. The form lists six search parameters, if any of them did not match, Dr., Onaka could not legally verify that they have such a record on file.

      • Posted September 9, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        Of course the gender, birth date, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name on the record they have match what is on the WH BC. Onaka directly verified that when he was purposely NOT verifying that the WH BC is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”

        That isn’t in question.

        But HRS 338-143. says that when Onaka verifies a birth fact he is verifying that the birth ACTUALLY happened that way. For a normal, legally valid birth record that’s not a problem. But late and altered birth records are not prima facie evidence; the claims on those records are not taken at face value. In fact, HRS 338-17 says that the probative value has to be determined when the BC is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Until then, the record has NO probative value. Nothing from that record is taken at face value or legally presumed to be true. That’s why Onaka could not certify any of those facts as being how the event really happened.

        All he could verify is that certain claims were made on a document that currently has no probative value. And that’s exactly what he verified. That’s all MDEC ever asked him to verify – because they knew it was all he could verify; they understood what he was saying to Ken Bennett.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

        “That’s why Onaka could not certify any of those facts as being how the event really happened.’

        No registrar can verify that that is “any of those facts as being how the event really happened.”

        You are a registrar and are asked to verify that a BC from 50 years ago represents how the record really happened. Unless you have personal inforamtion that that is the case, you cannot possibly verify it.

        All any registrar in any state can do is verify that the information on the copy matchs the information on the record.

        As to the statement “true and accurate representation”, it may be that to the DOH those are terms reserved explicitly for certified copies stamped by the registrar and with a raised seal, not a second or third generation xerox copy.

      • Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        Gorefan, read the statute. It’s right there in Klayman’s letter. It says that a verification is certification that the event happened as described by the applicant. What you are saying is impossible for a registrar to do is what every verification of a birth fact actually is.

        You do understand the difference between prima facie evidence and non-probative evidence, right? Prima facie evidence is credible enough – without obvious problems – that its claims are to be taken at face value unless credible evidence to refute the claims is presented. That’s what valid records are. Records that were completed within 37 days of birth are prima facie evidence. Certificates of Hawaiian Birth – which were late BC’s but had to be supported by credible evidence at the time – are also designated by Hawaii statute as prima facie evidence.

        Late and altered records, however, have no probative value until they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and the probative value is determined (again, this is in HRS 338-17 which was cited directly in Klayman’s letter). The HDOH is not in the business of applying Federal Rules of Evidence; they are merely custodians of records. They keep non-valid records in their office but the State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of any of the claims on those records. Only a judge or administrator can do that when the non-valid record is presented to them as evidence – that is, when they are in a setting where they are bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

        That means that no Hawaii official can say that Obama WAS born in Hawaii; they have no legally-sufficient evidence to be able to say that, and DEFINITELY NOT to certify it. If you look at Fukino’s statements, neither of them says that he was born in Hawaii – just that there is a record that claims it. That’s as far as they can go, and it is as far as Fukino went and as far as Onaka went.

        The standard language used by Hawaii to verify the accuracy of a document is “true and correct copy”, and it applies to non-certified records as well as certified copies. It just means that the record is materially accurate. Deputy AG Jill Nagamine had her own experience with that language, where she herself certified a copy of “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b as a “true and correct copy of the original” rather than have DAGS certify a copy for the judge in Duncan Sunahara’s appeal to get a copy of his sister’s long-form birth certificate. This is standard language. Even with that certification by Jill Nagamine the judge almost didn’t let an EXACT COPY of PHR Chapter 8b, taken from the website of the HDOH itself, be admitted into the court record. (The record had to be legally authenticated by someone bound by law and/or oath to tell the truth; Nagamine basically staked her authority on being a lawyer who is bound by the rules of the Bar and would thus perjure herself if she lied about the accuracy of the copy she presented to the judge.) This is standard legal language for somebody certifying that the record is materially accurate.

        Anybody who questions whether a judge would notice the difference between Bennett’s request (for verification that the WH BC is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on fil”) and what he got (verification that the information contained in the WH BC matches the original record) needs to look at what happened when Nagamine submitted PHR Chapter 8b to the judge in the Sunahara case. This is NOT piddles, by any stretch of the imagination.

        Which is why MDEC didn’t mess with Onaka. They only asked for what Onaka could legally say about EITHER a valid or a non-valid record, so that the validity of the record would be irrelevant to the request (and the verification would thus legally mean nothing except that a birth record exists which claims x, y, and z). And when they submitted to a judge the verification Onaka gave them, they clarified that when they said “information” they meant “birth facts” – just to make sure they couldn’t get into trouble for item 23 of the WH BC if a genuine copy of Obama’s record ever made it into the court record. Item 23 is a PROCESSING fact – noting what evidence was filed to support a late filing or amendment. MDEC made sure they didn’t tell a judge that Onaka had verified that the PROCESSING facts on the WH BC matched the original record on file, because they knew that would have been perjury.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 9, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

        The statute says “A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that a vital event did occur and that the facts of the the event are as stated by the applicant.”

        So by sending the verification, Dr. Onaka is certifying that the vital event (birth in Honolulu, Hawaii) did occur and that the facts of the event (SoS Bennett’s request form and additional items) are as stated. That verification is for “all purposes”. So every court in America will accept it as being exactly what the statute says it is. There will be no debate over he should have said it this way or that way.

      • Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        The statute requires that they verify the existence of a birth record if they have one, in addition to any other fact that is submitted for verification. If they verify a birth fact they are certifying that the fact is actually the way that the birth happened. If they simply verify the existence of a birth record, they aren’t verifying any birth facts. They are only verifying what they specifically say they are verifying.

        Otherwise – if it’s the way you claim – verifying the existence of a record is the registrar saying “I certify what you said.” Bennett could take that letter of verification to a judge along with a copy of a verification application requesting verification that Obama was born in 1776 to Grandma Moses and Abraham Lincoln, with Jack Kevorkian as the signing doctor – and what from that document certified by Onaka would prove it wrong? Every letter of verification would be a signed blank check – verifying whatever a person was willing to claim that they had submitted as the birth facts to be verified.

        No, if they don’t say it specifically, they’re not verifying it. Otherwise a letter of verification is a signed blank check that can legally mean nothing without there also being a certified copy of what the request was, that they were verifying.

        And they can verify the existence of a record without verifying every fact. The way you know what they are verifying and what they aren’t verifying is by what they actually SAY. “Verification” means saying something. And the only thing that Onaka specifically verified as true is that they have a birth certificate on file (which happens to make certain claims).

        You keep ignoring the fact that MDEC’s own request was tailored specifically with fig leaves in all the places they know the record is unpresentable. Why didn’t MDEC even submit a verification application form, as required? They didn’t ask any birth fact to be verified.

        Suppose there was a late and/or altered BC (legally non-valid, IOW) for person A which claimed that person A, female, was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, on January 1, 1980 to Patty Jones and Mike Smith. Qualified requestor B requested that Onaka verify the existence of a birth record for person A, female, who was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, on January 1, 1980 to Patty Jones and Mike Smith.

        How would Onaka respond? He is required by law to verify the existence of a birth record and anything else submitted to be verified. Would he verify the existence of a birth record? Why or why not, based on the language actually used in HRS 338-14.3 and any other Hawaii statute?


  2. gorefan
    Posted September 9, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Again read the code – they certify “the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.” What are the facts “stated by the applicant”?

    Name on Certificate: Barack Hussein Obama, II
    Sex; male
    DOB: August 4th, 1961
    Place of birth: Honolulu, Hawaii
    Father’s name: Barack Hussein Obama
    Mother’s name: Stanley Ann Dunham
    Department of Health File: #151 61 10641
    Time of birth: 7:24 p.m.
    Name of hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
    Age of father: 25
    Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
    Age of mother: 18
    Birthplace of mother: Wichita, Kansas
    Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
    Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
    Date accepted by local registrar: August-8 1961

    As to your scenario, that may be why the DOH is extremely picky in who can receive a certified verification. Someone requesting a verification has little reason to alter it. Remember too, Hawaii has the original verification request.

    • Posted September 10, 2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink | Reply

      You’re not actually engaging with anything I’ve said. You’re not answering any of my questions either. You’re wasting my time, which is what Obots do best.

      A government official doesn’t give signed blank checks certifying whatever the person is willing to claim that they submitted. It’s like the line from “The Princess Bride”, when Buttercup tells Wesley she didn’t mean to but got married. Wesley asks her if she said “I do”. Buttercup says, “We sort of skipped that part.” And Wesley’s line says it all: “If you didn’t say it, you didn’t do it.”

      A verification is words. If Onaka didn’t say he verifies that Obama, male, WAS born in Honolulu, on the island of Oahu on Aug 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, then he didn’t do it. What he DID say he verifies is that they have a record on file – which is what he is required to verify regardless of the probative value of the record they have.

      Tell me what the retention period is for verification requests. In 5 years will Hawaii still have all the records of what Ken Bennett requested? In 3 years? 2? 1? Some of those communications were via e-mail. Do you know how long they keep e-mail communications? Keep in mind that though these communications that would be critically vital in your scenario are only kept a finite period of time, the letter of verification has no shelf life. And there is no limit as to who can present that document in court. When Ken Bennett is out of office and there aren’t any records of what he asked, somebody can still take that paper document and submit it in court.

      What you are suggesting is absolutely crazy. If they’re going to do that, why not just give Bennett a blank BC with a certifying statement and raised seal on it so he can make it out however he wants? Government agencies do NOT operate that way.

      • gorefan
        Posted September 10, 2012 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        How many certified verifications from Hawaii have you seen? Two? So how do you know what the format is? Or that they even have a standard format? You want them to say things a certain way.

        To the State of Hawaii, when they said,

        “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §338.14.3, I verify the following:

        1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii”

        they were issuing a certified verification of the occurrence of the vital event and the facts as stated by the applicant.

        Every single court in America will accept it as a certified verification. You don’t want to, that’s your priviledge. That’s what makes Amercia great.

      • Posted September 10, 2012 at 1:42 am | Permalink

        You are not addressing the points and questions I’ve brought up. We can talk past each other until the cows come home but I’ve got better things to be doing with my life so I’m not going to waste my time talking to a brick wall.

      • Posted September 10, 2012 at 2:00 am | Permalink

        I’m going to add one thing, though, for anybody following this with an open mind. Onaka clearly did not verify that the WH BC is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. If what Gorefan is saying is correct, Onaka could not issue a verification of ANYTHING because something that was submitted wasn’t verified. If Onaka thought that simply by issuing a verification he was saying everything submitted to him was true, then there was no point for him to do anything beyond #1. The very fact that he added anything except #1 says that he knows that a verification is NOT certification of everything that the requestor submitted. By addressing the “true and accurate representation” request separately he showed that a verification of one thing is not a verification of EVERYTHING, as Gorefan wants us to believe. And by failing to verify what he was asked to verify on the “true and accurate representation” request, he shows that what he was requested to verify was NOT ACCURATE. IOW, Onaka issued a verification of one thing (the existence of a birth record) even though other items on the request (“true and accurate representation”) were NOT accurate. This blows away Gorefan’s theory that a verification of anything is a verification of everything. The document itself disproves that theory. And that theory would mean that a verification is a signed blank check, as I’ve described and as Gorefan has totally ignored.

        The simple fact is this: a verification is words. If Onaka didn’t say that he verifies something, he isn’t verifying it. And clearly Onaka verified some things but not others – all in the same request. Anybody can see that. What Gorefan is suggesting makes no sense with the law, with the integrity of certified documents, or what we actually see in Onaka’s letter.

        And that’s why Klayman and 2 other attorneys, (including one whose legal arguments in his legal cases are based upon the BC being accurate) have agreed that this is a confirmation that Obama’s record is non-valid. It’s also why MDEC’s request was tailor-made to fit this understanding of what Onaka actually verified, and their presentation of the document to a judge included a disclaimer that would cover their behinds if a genuine BC ever made it into the court records – a disclaimer stating that “information” only means birth facts (not processing or legal validity facts, which they know that Onaka did not verify as matching between the WH BC and the genuine record). The fig leaves that MDEC put up are in all the right places to show that they KNOW Onaka verified that the WH BC is a forgery and that the record is not legally valid.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: