Why a Verification Letter Now?

ARIZONA’S COLD CASE POSSE MEETS WITH THE HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

by Sharon Rondeau

(May 24, 2012) — After eight weeks of stonewalling, the Hawaii Department of Health appears to have issued a verification letter in response to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett‘s inquiry as to whether or not the department retains the same information in its files as that which appears on Obama’s long-form birth certificate released to the public on April 27, 2011.

Last week, Bennett had told a radio show host that he was considering withholding Obama’s name from the Arizona ballot for November because he had not received the requested confirmation.   On March 1, 2012, the sheriff from Maricopa County, AZ and his investigative team declared Obama’s long-form birth certificate, as well as his Selective Service registration form, to be a forgery.

In response to questions about his birthplace and background, the Obama regime had originally insisted that the short-form birth certificate was the only one available.  That, too, has been declared a forgery and appears in both a black-and-white format and with a green background.  Although the Hawaii Department of Health claimed to have ceased issuing long-form birth certificates to requesters in 2001 when they computerized their records, several people have been able to obtain long-forms since the controversy about Obama’s documentation, or lack thereof, arose.

Bennett’s correspondence was therefore not conducted with Health Department staff, to which Nagamine referred to as her “client.”  Nagamine also questioned Bennett’s “authority” to “maintain and update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of his activities.”  Nagamine had asked for a reference to Arizona’s “law that allows this” as well as answers to the following questions:

(1) What list are you updating?
(2) Is it your normal procedure to update all entries on your list by requiring birth data verification?
(3) Are you requiring birth data verification of all entries on your list, rather than just targeting one name on your list? (please provide evidence that you are doing so)

One website claims to have obtained the emails exchanged between Bennett and Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine, having described Nagamine’s responses as “giving Bennett a taste of his own medicine” following his request for verification.  After the Hawaii Health Department took weeks, months or more to respond to “public records requests” from others, including a verification letter for a child born on August 4, 1961, Obama’s claimed date of birth, TPM Muckraker claims to have obtained a response almost immediately.  It is unclear if its reference to making the request “on Monday” indicates May 14 or 21.  A link in the story to “an interview” which allegedly took place between a spokesman for the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and an Associated Press reporter leads to Ken Bennett’s interview with radio show Mike Broomhead.

A website relying on TPM for its information mistakenly identified Nagamine as Hawaii’s Assistant Secretary of State and claims that there are “years of backlogged requests” sent to the Hawaii Department of Health.

Nagamine has been fighting various attempts to compel the Hawaii Department of Health to allow the inspection of Obama’s original birth record which they purportedly have on file for Obama, citing privacy laws governing vital records.

Bennett reportedly had to “reword” his request in order to receive a response from the Hawaii Department of Health.

But does the digital image of a verification letter from Hawaii released to the press and the public have any more value than the short-form or long-from birth certificate images which Obama has previously produced?

The Post & Email asked Atty. Mario Apuzzo about the legal value of an electronic document as opposed to a tangible, paper document, to which he responded:

The verification of birth could be considered  public record, report, or finding of a public official made by him as part of his official duties and so an exception to hearsay.  But anybody wanting to use such evidence in a court of law would have to give the adversary advance notice of his/her intention to do so so that the adversary would have a fair opportunity to meet it.  If Obama notified any lawyer of such intention, the other party should then be able to subpoena Alvin T. Onaka, the author of the verification who is available to testify, to court and demand that he bring with him the underlying documents that he relied upon to make the verification.  Parties have the right to cross examine witnesses in court to be able to get to the truth of what they assert to be facts or opinions.  That Onaka is subpoenaed for cross examination testimony is only proper and fair, for someone cannot cross examine a piece of paper.

On April 10, 2012, during a New Jersey deliberation over Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be placed on that state’s ballot, an attorney representing his re-election campaign stated that the image which the White House released last year “should not be placed into evidence.”  Shortly thereafter, the law firm where the attorney, Alexandra Hill, was employed announced that she was being replaced by one of the partners of the firm and that it was his desire to have video footage of the hearing removed from the internet.  The attorney’s office declined to comment about the matter to The Post & Email.

Apuzzo recently filed an appeal to the decision reached by Judge Jeff Masin last month which contended that Obama’s name would be placed on the New Jersey ballot for the November election without his having to prove his constitutional eligibility.

Contrary to a report which states that “a fake birth certificate would mean Obama is ineligible for the presidency because it would show he was not born a citizen,” various researchers and writers have stated that “a fake birth certificate” constitutes the crimes of forgery and fraud.  There has been no explanation from the White House as to why a promotional pamphlet from 1991 containing Obama’s biography to promote his book stated that he was born in Kenya and raised in Hawaii and Indonesia was maintained on his agent’s website until 2007, when his narrative changed to his having been born in Hawaii.

Both Queens Medical Center and Kapiolani Medical Center have been identified as the place of Obama’s birth, but neither will confirm the claim.  Could it be that neither one is his birthplace, but instead, it is New York City under a different name?

On May 24, 2012, The Post & Email contacted Bennett’s communications director, Matthew Roberts, to ask if Bennett’s office had requested a hard copy of the verification letter, to which he responded:

hard copy was sent.  we haven’t received it yet.

The lead investigator of the Cold Case Posse involved in a criminal probe into Obama’s documentation is currently in Hawaii with a sheriff’s deputy.  He has stated that he believes that the White House is trying “to divorce itself from the Obama long-form birth certificate released.”   Sheriff Arpaio’s representatives met with a representative of the Hawaii Attorney General’s office at the Hawaii Department of Health:

Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Hawaii State Department of Health, said two men dressed in business suits from Arpaio’s department sat down with deputies from the health department and attorney general’s office in a conference room Monday.