Showing posts with label Hawaii. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hawaii. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

ARPAIO INVESTIGATOR: HAWAII STILL COVERING UP FOR The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold


Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, says he has returned from a second trip to Hawaii with additional evidence the state’s Department of Health is maintaining a cover-up of Obama’s 1961 birth records.
When Arpaio dispatched Zullo for the second trip, the assignment was kept confidential for Zullo’s safety and to prevent media leaks. Only Arpaio and the chief deputy of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office were aware of the assignment.
In Honolulu, Zullo worked closely with local contacts, including Duncan Sunahara, the brother of Virginia Sunahara, an infant child born in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961, the same day Obama was born, and died the next day.
As WND reported, Virginia Sunahara entered as a figure in the Obama birth controversy because no birth certificate for her had been located, leading to speculation her birth certificate could have been the source of Obama’s.
Duncan Sunahara has tried to obtain a copy of his sister’s original birth certificate but has been denied.
“I was shocked by the lengths the Hawaii Department of Health has gone to deny the family of Virginia Sunahara a copy of the original long-form birth certificate that the family is lawfully entitled to request and obtain,” Zullo told WND. “I had to ask the question why this little girl’s 1961 long-form birth certificate was so disconcerting to the Hawaii Department of Health?”
DHOH stonewalls
Zullo obtained from Duncan Sunahara a copy of proceedings in the Hawaii Circuit Court of the First Circuit in which Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine appeared before Judge Rhonda Nishimura on March 8, 2012, to argue Duncan Sunahara was not entitled under Hawaii statutes to observe or obtain a copy of his sister’s original 1961 long-form birth certificate.
During the proceeding, Nagamine argued that Duncan Sunahara’s request did not derive from a true interest to examine or obtain a copy of his sister’s original birth records, to which he was entitled under Hawaii law. Nagamine insisted his underlying interest was to produce evidence in Obama’s birth controversy, to which he was not entitled under Hawaii law.
Nagamine argued that the original 1961 birth certificate records were delicate and needed protection, and accessing them was burdensome.
But to get the long form you actually do have to go to the vault. And the records that are in the vault have been bound in volumes, not just the one, not just plaintiff’s sister’s records, but other records from around that time of birth, for example, in this case, the president’s birth certificate, which we know this is all about.
So these volumes in the vault are kept in temperature-controlled areas, they are bound in volumes, the clerk would have to go and find the volume that it’s in, pull out the volumes. These are old records, and in plaintiff’s case it’s more than 50 years old. They would have to open the volume. They have a special Xerox machine that copies those old records that they don’t remove the binding. They have been bound.
The plaintiff could not back (sic) in the area of the Department of Health where that special Xerox machine is and he couldn’t go in the vault without this disrupting the security and safety of the other records, the temperature in the room in the vault where the records are kept. So it would be very, very burdensome, not only for the legwork involved going to retrieve the volume, find the volume, find the page, take it to the Xerox machine, copy it.
So, Nagamine concludes, Duncan Sunahara should be satisfied with the short-form certificate of live birth the Department of Health issued for his sister, even though it is a modern computer-generated form, not a certified exact copy of the original:
If everybody was getting [a copy of the long-form birth certificate], those days of copies like they did in the old days, the records could not be preserved safely, the pages would be torn, they could not be protected. So the fact that all of this data is computerized, they can get the data. The law means that this data is as good as the original. Plaintiff got the birth certificate, he knows his sister was born. To there – there – it would be very, very burdensome.
Judge Nishimura denied Duncan Sunahara’s request, agreeing with Nagamine.
Zullo charges Hawaii with lying
Zullo was quick to point out that in the court proceedings Nagamine admitted the entire volume of birth certificates containing not only Virginia Sunahara’s long-form certificate, but also those of the Nordyke twins and Barack Obama, has been moved to a special secure location with very limited access.
“The point apparently is to hide away Obama’s original birth certificate, if it exists and then deny anyone access to see the document on the premise it’s too fragile to examine,” he said.
“What purpose did the Hawaii Department of Health have in preserving these records if it was not to show them when requested to family members and others who have a legal interest in seeing the documents?”
Zullo dismissed Nagamine’s argument that getting a photocopy of a long-form original 1961 birth certificate was a burdensome, time-consuming process that would jeopardize the integrity of all birth documents.
“Nagamine’s arguments were utterly disingenuous,” Zullo stressed.
“Her vigorous defense has nothing to do with the integrity of original 1961 birth records. Most likely, Virginia Sunahara’s original long-form birth certificate has a different number than the number on the computer-generated short-form certificate of live birth that the agency released to the family.”
Zullo further pointed out that Nagamine’s arguments in the Sunahara hearing seem to contradict photographic evidence of Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, easily locating a volume on a wall-length bookshelf of bound birth certificate volumes.
“What Onaka showed in that photograph was nothing like what Nagamine argued in court,” Zullo said.
Numbers out of sequence
WND reported in May 2011 that no birth certificate had been located for Virginia Sunahara at that time.
Subsequently, the controversy intensified when the Hawaii Department of Health released to Duncan Sunahara a short-form certificate of live birth with the number 151 1961-011080.
The problem was that the Sunahara birth certificate number was wildly out of sequence with Obama’s birth certificate number and with the birth certificate numbers of the Nordyke twins, who were born in Hawaii the day after Obama.
WND reported in July 2009 that the Nordyke twins, born at Kapiolani Hospital, the same hospital as Obama, were issued birth certificate numbers lower than Obama’s.
Here is the sequence, including Virginia Sunahara:
  • Susan Nordyke was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
  • Gretchen Nordyke was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
  • Barack Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 7:24 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 4, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10641, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 8, 1961.
  • Virginia Sunahara was born at Wahiawa Hospital at 9:16 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 4, 1961, and was given No. 161-1961-011080, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 10, 1961.
So, Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate number is some 440 numbers higher than the Nordyke twins’ and Obama’s birth certificates, even though Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate was filed with the Hawaii registrar two days after Obama and one day before the Nordyke twins.
Moreover, the inclusion of the full year “1961” in the Sunahara birth certificate violates the pattern seen in the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates and in Obama’s, where the year is represented only by two digits “61.”
Virginia Sunahara's short-form birth certificate
These anomalies led Duncan Sunahara to request the Hawaii Department of Health to allow him to witness the production of a direct copy from the long-form birth certificate held by the HDOH in the agency’s vault.
His purpose was to see if the birth certificate number on the short-form computer-generated certificate of live birth the HDOH issued him had an altered number that had been forged to create the impression the HDOH in 1961 did not number birth certificates in the order in which they were filed.
If the HDOH in 1961 issued birth certificates randomly, or by a logic other than chronological order of birth, then the fact that Obama’s number is higher than the Nordyke twins numbers could be explained.
“The reason the Hawaii Department of Health most likely does not want the public to see the original 1961 birth records is that an honest examination would show the forgers made a mistake in assigning to the forged Obama birth certificate a number that was out of sequence,” Zullo insisted.
“If we could see the original 1961 birth certificate volumes, we would see the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 assigned numbers in a reasonable and understandable manner – in chronological order of birth, not in random order.”
He was specifically concerned that the Department of Health has not offered any testimony that the modern computerized data used to generate the short-form certificates of birth have been safeguarded from numerical or other data manipulation.
“To my amazement, all Nagamine offered the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office as proof Obama was born in Hawaii was a computer-generated list of birth registrations that was contained in a ring binder such that pages could be removed, altered and reinserted,” he noted.
“There was no level of security other than the closed rings of the binder holding the pages in place.”
Zullo added that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has obtained a signed affidavit from an individual who went to the Department of Health early in the public’s quest for the truth about the Obama birth certificate.
“That individual states that when he first went to the Hawaii Department of Health’s main office in Honolulu, Obama’s name did not appear in the computerized registration list in the ring binder, but when he went back approximately 14 days later to examine the same list, he was amazed Obama’s name suddenly was there.”
‘We didn’t make mistakes’
In July, WND in Hawaii conducted a telephone interview with Verna K. Lee, the local registrar who signed Obama’s birth certificate.
Lee told WND all the birth certificates received in a particular month were put in order according to date and time of birth and numbered sequentially at the end of the month.
The only exception was that birth certificates received from the other islands and from the one local office in Oahu were grouped separately. The purpose was to not under-represent births outside Honolulu or unattended births occurring at home, because only even-number birth certificates were reported to the federal government as mandated by the U.S. Office of Vital Statistics in 1961.
Birth certificates from the hospitals in Oahu were sent directly to the central office of the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu.
“The birth certificates were all numbered at the end of the month,” Lee said. “It was done by one person at the end of the month.”
When asked if there could be mistakes in numbering the birth certificates, Lee insisted birth certificates were numbered correctly on her watch.
“The birth certificates were kept together in a certain room until we numbered them all in a bunch at the end of the month,” she said. “We didn’t get them out of order, and we didn’t number them incorrectly, not in my time.”
Zullo contended the new revelations provided by Verna K. Lee attested to the care, control and method of sequential numbering of all long-form birth certificates in 1961.
“It is utterly impossible to have a birth certificate number so far out of sequence as the Sunahara birth certificate and to have that document accepted at a registrar’s office managed by Verna K. Lee,” he said. “The cover-up remains alive and well even today in the Hawaii Department of Health.”

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

El Presidente LAWYER WARNED AGAINST CERTIFYING ELIGIBILITY


A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.
The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.
In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.
“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.
“At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”
Such verifications, if created, would be “perjurious,” Klayman said.
Arizona’s inquiry
The evidence he cites in the letter encompasses several issues, including the recent highly publicized exchange sparked by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who asked the state of Hawaii, where Obama says he was born, to verify the “natural born citizen” status of the likely Democratic nominee.
WND reported Bennett eventually “closed” his inquiry into the issue without getting any pertinent documentation.
Bennett formally inquired of Hawaii for verification of Obama’s birth records there, and when he received a statement from state officials announced his inquiry was closed.
“As to whether the president was born in Hawaii, personally I believe he was,” he said. “I actually think he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college.”
But he said all clearly was not above-board.
“I think he has spent $1.5 to $2 million through attorneys to have all the college records and all that stuff sealed,” Bennett said. “So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”
Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has formal investigation going on into the issue of Obama’s eligibility, and preliminary results have confirmed that the image of a birth document posted online by the White House is not real.
Path to conclusion
Klayman’s path to the conclusion that no one really can know wasn’t complicated.
He noted that the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka “failed” to provide verification to Bennett of Obama’s birth information.
“He did, however, verify that ‘the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.’
“Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record…’”
But Klayman explained the state law requires Onaka to furnish “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.”
Klayman explained that leaves Onaka no option and “the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so. Since he verified that those claims are on the record in the DOH files, the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’
“The only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not. There is no other plausible explanation,” Klayman said.
WND contacted Bauer’s firm, Perkins Coie, for a comment, but there was no response on the holiday today.
Altered
But Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states, “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”
“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand along without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.
Klayman’s conclusion is that “no one can state with any legal certainty that candidate Obama is even old enough to be president, much less that he meets the exclusively high bar of ‘natural-born citizen’ status, required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5.”
He noted at this point “No one can legally swear that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president; and because the DNC bylaws require the Democratic presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible, there is also, therefore, no party official who can legally swear that Mr. Obama is the ‘legally qualified candidate’ of the Democratic Party, under its own bylaws.
Perjury
For a party official to do so “would be to perjure him or herself,” he wrote.
Klayman told Bauer that in 2008 the Hawaii Democratic Party “removed the standard language heretofore employed certifying the ‘constitutional eligibility’ of candidates Obama and Biden.”
“In other words, the state party most keenly aware of Mr. Obama’s existing records would not (anddid not) certify their constitutional eligibility,” he said. However, at the same time, “then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, did certify their constitutional eligibility [to present] to election officials in Hawaii, while removing that same standard language [when it was] presented in at least some (if not all) of the remaining states.”
Klayman, whose high-profile legal career has included lawsuits against OPEC, Cuban interests, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, told WND the letter puts Democrats on notice that certifying Obama’s eligibility without having the actual knowledge opens them up to a liability for making false statements.
2008 documents
WND reported early in Obama’s term on the issue of the 2008 certifications.
A commentator at Canada Free Press first exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president and then said Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.
“In most states,” Williams wrote, “it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.”
He had released copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president, one that contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility and filed in Hawaii (where state law requires the specific language) and another omitting the language and filed in the remaining 49 states.
The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

One image of the certification for Barack Obama’s nomination, including the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”
The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, but in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.

Another image of a certification, on which the certification of eligibility has been removed