Comment: Here's the deal ...

(See in situ)

Here's the deal ...

The guy who originally posted this information on his website was making an assumption, which was based on a letter that another guy sent to Republican congressmen, which itself was based on a letter sent by Larry Klayman to the Democratic National Committe lawyer, which in turn was based on a non-response by Alvin Onaka, as it relates to the Arizona Secretary of State's request of Mr. Onaka.


So ...

Arizona Secretary of State wants to verify that Obama's birth certificate is valid. He sends a letter to Alvin Onaka, in charge of birth records in Hawaii.

Under Hawaiian statute, Onaka is required to either provide a certified copy of the BC or to verify each and every element of the information requested.

Onaka did neither, but sort of slipped out the side by not verifying but not denying, either. So, the report that Onaka verified the BC to be fake is not true.

Once Onaka sent his non-verification "verification" to Arizona SOS, various lawyers smelled a rat. Larry Klayman sent a letter to the DNC General Counsel alerting him that Obama's BC cannot be verified and, therefore, they cannot use it to validate Obama's eligibility.

Like all such things in this saga, the letter was probably ignored.

Anyway, this non-verification by Onaka appears to be viewed as a validation that the BC is not valid. Onaka didn't SAY this. But when a government official does not verify what he is legally required to verify, the presumtion then becomes that he did not verify it (in accordance with the law) because he CANNOT verify it. That is the assumption being made here. Only testimony under oath will get to the bottom of this.

And speaking of which ...

As a separate but related issue, Orly Taitz (lawyer for plaintiffs in Electoral College lawsuit) has the hearing on Thursday (1/3/2013) in California, and Onaka is supposed to appear, testify, AND provide documents. My guess is he will be a no show, and then the question becomes whether or not the judge actually has a pair.

Here is Larry Klayman's letter:

Here is the original website that reported this story:

Look at the poster by the handle of "butterdezillion." Read his posts and go to his links to see he was the originator of this story.

Also of note, Orly Taitz has posted that the Daily Paul is paying attention to her lawsuit:

There has been so much corruption in all of this. The entire Congress knows it. Both the DNC and RNC know it. The judges all know it. The Supreme Court justices all know it. And yet, all that happens is stonewalling, lies, and silence in the media.

Some of the cases were thrown out without hearing any evidence due to judges saying things like "You just want to sue Obama because he's black," and one judge referencing the movie, "Miracle on 34th Street" to say Obama is in the white house, so he must be valid, just like Santa Claus. There has NEVER been a single shred of evidence presented by Obama in ANY court -- not one. Because not one judge has required it, and every judge (so far) has ignored all evidence presented by the other side.

THIS is the state of our judicial system. As corrupt as can be.

We'll see if this judge in California is made of a different character -- or not.