ForgeryGate: Larry Klayman’s Historic Letter To DNC Legal Counsel

Tom Ballantyne Jr. SC 1024x680 ForgeryGate: Larry Klayman’s Historic Letter to DNC Legal Counsel

By now, many of you will probably have read Bob Unruh’s excellent article published at WND on September 3, 2012.   The article begins by reporting that “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 Democratic Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could be charged with election fraud.”  As many of you know, the “key Barack Obama attorney,” Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, was the President’s chief legal counsel, working in the White House, until June 2, 2011, exactly five weeks after the President “released” (posted an alleged digital image thereof on-line) his Long Form Birth Certificate.  He hasn’t “gone away,” however, as he continues to be the legal counsel to both the Obama Campaign and the DNC.

The thrust of Larry Klayman’s letter to Attorney Bauer and the DNC is that as chief legal counsel, he cannot recommend that they place candidate Obama’s name on the Official Certificates of Nomination, or OCON’s, which they are required to submit to election officials in all fifty states. The bottom line, according to Attorney Klayman, is that given the refusal of Hawaii Registrar for Vital Statistics, Alvin Onaka, to verify the key facts of Obama’s birth as well as the validity of the birth certificate itself (posted at, when requested to do so by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, back on March 30th, there is no legally-allowable basis for any official to accept the document as proof of identity. It simply can’t be done legally! 

And this means that no one can legally affirm that Barack Obama is even old enough to be President, much less that he is a natural-born citizen, as it is not legally knowable where he is born.  For those who sneer at this notion, I would simply ask:  On what basis can anyone know – save someone who was physically present at the birth and themselves made a record (determined to be legitimate through forensic examination) – either where or when he (or anyone else) was born?  The short and obvious answer is that absent a provably-reliable birth certificate, he can’t!  And how would a birth certificate be proven to be reliable?  Again, first and foremost through the age-old practice of examining a certified hard copy!

And according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Article IX, Rule 901 – Authenticating or Identifying Evidence, we find:

(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

So the person submitting the evidence (its “proponent”) must effectively demonstrate (via further “evidence”) that the item (in this case, an alleged birth certificate – a digital image of an alleged birth certificate, in fact”is what the proponent claims it is.”

[As an aside, may I just say how preposterous this entire discussion is – or the need thereof – when the idea that any ordinary citizen would even attempt to argue before a prospective employer or public official the legitimacy of a digital image of his or her key identifying document (a legally-certified birth document) while steadfastly refusing to present an easily-obtainable hard copy (one costs $10 in the State of Hawaii – including postage) is patently absurd! And the man who has dragged the country through this outrageous exercise – at the literal cost of millions of dollars – for over four years now has the audacity to proclaim this a “sideshow” and call those who have demanded the truth “carnival barkers”!]

Next we find this in Rule 901 of Article IX:

(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

(3) Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact. [While this refers to a handwriting specimen, by extension, a licensed forensic examiner is clearly “an expert witness” or a “trier of fact,” and “Public Records” are clearly included immediately hereafter.]

(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances. [While this is supposed to corroborate the legitimacy of evidence presented, exculpatory “characteristics” (of what appears to be a digitally-created document) can also, by extension, when “taken together with all the circumstances,” be used to demonstrate an apparent lack of legitimacy or “authentication.”]

And finally, the specific requirements for “Public Records” and “Ancient Documents”:

 (7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:

(A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or

(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.

(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:

(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;

(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and

(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.

[Given that Attorney Klayman’s letter to Mr. Bauer suggests that what Mr. Onaka’s official “verification” actually proves is that candidate Obama’s birth certificate is what is known as “Late” or “Altered,” this requirement has particular relevance as what should now be a fifty-one year old document is not in all probability “20 years old” – if it ever is “offered”!]

In conclusion, I will simply reiterate that under Rule 901, Article IX of these universally-accepted (throughout the country, at least) Rules of Evidence, candidate Obama, as the “proponent” of the evidence of his birth place and time (both absolutely essential to the determination of his Constitutional eligibility) ”must produce [further] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item [his birth certificate] is what [he, as] the proponent claims it [to be].” 

I say “further” evidence because according to Mr. Klayman and his thorough legal analysis of the official Alvin Onaka (legal) “verification,” the digital image posted by candidate Obama at “cannot legally be considered to have probative value.  In other words, as prima facie evidence, it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official.’” And given the requirements of Rule 901, along with the preponderance of exculpatory evidence surrounding the digital document – not to mention the extraordinary anomaly of his refusal to present the universally-required certified hard copy – the “proponent,” Mr. Obama, ”must produce” further corroborating evidence; and, at the very least, must be compelled to allow forensic examination by a number of court-approved, licensed forensic examiners, of the certificate which Mr. Onaka has certified to be in their files.

As a footnote, I will add the following from Mr. Klayman’s ground-breaking legal analysis:

A certification is a solemn oath that a person KNOWS their statement to be true. Until the above-described procedure is followed, and it is definitively determined by the authorized government officials, that the Hawaii birth record is legally probative, NO ONE can legally swear that Mr. Obama is Constitutionally-eligible to be President; and because the DNC by-laws 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 by-laws.

The word “certify” comes from the Latin certus, plus the root facere, meaning “to make,” or “do.”  Hence the meaning “to make certain.”  In the legal sense, this is not a frivolous matter and therefore cannot be taken lightly or be ignored without legal consequence.  Thus, Klayman continues:

For any party official to do so at this point would be to perjure him or herself.  In addition, any attorney, Mr. Bauer, who would counsel any party official to swear to either of those things (candidate Obama’s Constitutional eligibility or his fitness as the Democratic Candidate in accordance with their own DNC by-laws) suborns perjury.  Furthermore, anyone who submits (or any attorney who either advises or fails to advise anyone to submit) an Official Certification of Nomination containing a perjurious oath, to a state elections official, would be guilty of committing federal and state election fraud.

While Democrats across the country are exulting in the re-nomination of their charismatic champion to a hoped-for second term, the world will be watching both Mr. Bauer and the Democratic National Committee for whom he provides legal counsel (as well as the State Democratic Committees, Secretaries of State, and Attorneys General in all fifty states) to see if they will once again ignore their own by-laws, the Rules of Evidence, and the statutes of both the State of Hawaii and their own states in apparently proclaiming their candidate to be “Constitutionally-eligible,” when the Official Verification of Alvin Onaka and the State of Hawaii clearly demonstrates otherwise!


Tom Ballantyne is the author of three books:  The Secret of Life Series, Uncommon Sense…Apparently! and Oh Really, O’Reilly! – an expose on the Establishment Media (Left and “Right”) and their collusion in the biggest fraud in American History!


Related posts:

  1. ForgeryGate: An Open Letter To My Republican Senator, Jon Kyl (AZ) (Fourth Most “Conservative” Member of the U.S. Senate) From An…
  2. Forgerygate: An Open Letter To The Staff Of Andrew Breitbart, Part 2 Following is a continuation of the now-infamous interview of Ben…

Comments are closed.