There is good reason to believe that Obama’s actual birth record is a compilation from different sources....

Hawaii’s Non-Verification: Obama Verification Letter Broken Down; Less Than 8 Weeks

Hawaii’s Non-Verification

By Butterdezillion

In response to large volume of communications requesting that, in light of Sheriff Arpaio’s findings of probable cause for forgery and fraud involving Barack Obama’s posted long-form birth certificate and draft registration, Obama’s Presidential eligibility be investigated, Ken Bennett, the Arizona Secretary of State, requested a verification of Obama’s birth facts from the Hawaii Dept of Health. According to the communications posted at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php?ref=fpnewsfeed , this is the content of Bennett’s original request (bold numbers added to show the 3 kinds of verification originally requested, in the order in which I will address them):

Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to (1) the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify (2) the following items from the record of birth:


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


Additionally, please verify (3) that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.

After 8 weeks of delay and insisting that Bennett had not yet proven that he was eligible to receive a verification, the Hawaii Attorney General’s office spoke with Bennett and said that if Bennett “re-worded” his request they would consider responding to it. Shortly thereafter the following “verification” at the end of this article was issued (found at http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf ). Bennett was quoted as saying that he received what he had asked for. So if we look at the difference between what he originally requested and what he received, we will know what he was required to change.

#1: The actual request form printed from the web was specifically withdrawn.

In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth

In addition to this communication, Bennett copied a request form off the HDOH, filled it out, and sent it.The form to request a verification in lieu of a certified copy is the same form as to request a certified copy. The items on that form can be seen at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf and include the date of birth, which is essential to Presidential eligibility.

Why was that specifically left out – apparently at the demand of the HI Attorney General’s office?

The key, I believe, is this: The original request for items other than on the form said, “please verify the following items from the record of birth”. This is a request to verify that those items are on the record of birth – NOT that those items are accurate.

Without that statement – for instance, if the form was just filled out, HRS 338-14.3 (found at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm ) says that:

(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.

In other words, unless stated otherwise, the HDOH in a verification is actually certifying that the applicant’s claims on the birth certificate are true. But that is problematic for the HDOH when the birth record in question is late and/or amended, because HRS 338-17 (found at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017.htm ) says:

§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. 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. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

The State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of the claims on a late or amended birth certificate. That’s why they have to be clearly marked as “LATE” or “ALTERED”. And the computer-generated abstracts (COLB’s) have a statement at the bottom: ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE. Late and altered birth certificates are legally non-valid. The State of Hawaii CANNOT verify the truth of the facts on a legally non-valid birth certificate. The Hawaii Attorney General’s office would know that, and they would thus require that the request form itself be withdrawn.

But the way Bennett phrased his original non-form request indicates that he wants the HDOH to verify that those items are what is on the birth certificate – which is a different thing than verifying what the true, legally probative facts are. And that is what the HDOH does. In his certifying statement Onaka says:

I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.

He is certifying that the “verification” is based solely on the information contained in the vital record. Which is all Bennett asked for on the NON-FORM request. He only wanted to verify that these are the claims that were on the birth certificate.

READ MORE...