Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Obama Hustle
The Obama Hustle ^ | 12-30-12 | Jackv

Posted on 12/30/2012 10:45:35 AM PST by jackv

BREAKING NEWS – Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. with 31 comments

(Excerpt) Read more at theobamahustle.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: birth; birthcertificate; certificate; fraud; hawaii; humour; illegitimate; impeach; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: rawcatslyentist

Indonesian Go Home!

To Kenya!


41 posted on 12/31/2012 1:44:29 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The point is that if a person submits a fact to be verified, Onaka HAS to verify it if he can.

That is your theory. But it wasn't Onaka's understanding of his role. Look at how long it took before each of the document images (or whatever they are) was released. The understanding of the registry about its own role and duties was and isn't what you thought or think it is.

I've had some trouble with the Klayman documents, but he has a similar problem. He's always jumping to conclusions, always assuming that there are no alternatives to his own assumptions. When somebody confidently keeps saying "the only possibility is ..." it may be

I will try to find the Hawaiian law about this after the holiday, but given the history of all that's happened to this point, I don't think you are right about specific and blanket verifications.

42 posted on 12/31/2012 2:00:31 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: x

How do you know what Onaka understood about his role?

What I’ve stated is what is in Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3, which can be seen at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm and which says (keep in mind that the word “shall” means it is obligatory; there is no discretion):

§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, 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 relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

(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.

(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.

(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.

(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]


43 posted on 12/31/2012 2:15:41 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: x
"do you have any evidence Obama wasn't born male?"

Do you have any evidence that he was?

44 posted on 12/31/2012 4:38:29 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: x
It looks like you are quibbling with the language. If Onaka "verifies" a list of 12 items, specifying that a birth certificate exists with a certain name and place of birth and continuing to list 11 other items, many people would assume that Onaka was "verifying" that all of those items were on the birth certificate.

Right, it's supposed to "look like" he's "verifying" all the items on the PDF of the long-form, but then he finishes with the "additionally" statement, claiming the information on the PDF "matches" the original record on file. Why would that be additional to what was in the list?? Why list out the 12 items minus the other three or four, and then add that statement?? And why does it NOT say the PDF is a true copy??

Of course, it could be a tricky ploy: some or all of those 11 items might not actually be on the birth certificate and Onaka's language might be a clever legal way of appearing to verify that they are without actually doing so.

But it could also be just his way of doing things. Understand that there would be one way of referring to items on the usual "short form" computer generated document and another way, less used today, of referring to items on the original certificate and any xerox or PDF produced from them.

This isn't a very good explanation because the short form is supposed to be derived from the long-form and second, the list of 12 items includes several things that are NOT on the short form, three, SOS Bennett never requested a verification of the short-form, and four, the short-form has an official name: "Certification of Live Birth." Onaka does not use this term in the letter of verification. He does use other discrete and separate terms: birth certificate, Certificate of Live Birth, and "original record in our files." Let's remember that former DOH director Chiyome Fukino referenced multiple records in one of the news releases that was supposed to confirm the authenticity of Obama's COLB. And also remember that she said his long-form was half-handwritten. Obama's PDF is obviously NOT half-handwritten. There may be all kinds of different documents on file ... some are "original" but this doesn't mean they were created in 1961.

Onaka's language may just reflect the awkward and unusual nature of the situation, rather than any intent to deceive. Any way to convey his meaning in language would probably come into question if you go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

No, the DOH stalled for two months before responding to Bennett's request AND they insisted that he filed his request in a specific way. Second, this doesn't explain why Onaka ignored the items that are on the DOH's standard birth-record request form.

Or there may be some legal or bureaucratic desire to cover himself from legal challenges without intent to defraud, which results in a clumsy phrasing. Or the truth may be somewhere in between, the information verified being correct, but something else concealed.

This is part of the reason I mentioned the adoption rules that are referenced on the DOH's Obama webpage. There may be things that are being concealed by law ... but there IS an intent to defraud because the DOH knows this information is being used in regards to Obama's eligibility. What is concealed has an impact on Obama's nationality and eligibility. There's a reasonable public interest in providing full disclosure of Obama's records in spite of any contrary state laws.

You could be right, but the chance that you are is less than they were years ago when this whole thing started. Enthusiasm for minute scrutiny of documents has declined over the years. For one thing, a lot of the comments about the document released being an "obvious forgery" just don't hold up.

People who didn't know anything about typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind, people who couldn't see how an image of a document bound in a book would be curved, people who couldn't even draw a straight line for Pete's sake, were claiming that they could easily see how the pdf was faked, and this has really hurt the credibility of the charges -- at least with me.

I'm not addressing the issues of forgery here, just what the letter of verification tells us and more importantly, what it purposely refused to verify. I think it's silly to presume to know what anyone else knows about "typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind." There are plenty of obvious red flags in Obama's PDF and it doesn't take any special expertise to recognize that.

45 posted on 12/31/2012 7:00:05 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
It looks like that's what he did. He gave a general or overall verification that the certificate existed and the copy contained the same information and then verified certain points that he was specifically asked to check.

He wasn't obligated to do anything more or other than that. In law and politics and bureaucracy, people don't do favors for those who are assumed to be "on the other side." Unless there's a court order, which I don't think there was, they do the absolute minimum required by law. That's the standard procedure, and I don't think you can conclude anything from that.

Also, as some of the commenters on other sites have noted, there are real problems with attesting that a document and a copy are "identical." Two pieces of paper (or a piece of paper and a computer graphic) aren't literally the same thing. You can verify the information, but going further than that is problematic and not required by the law.

46 posted on 01/02/2013 1:48:24 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Why would that be additional to what was in the list?? Why list out the 12 items minus the other three or four, and then add that statement??

I don't have all the paperwork in front of me, but it looks like he verified the information on the document in question matched and then that the specific items he was asked to verify matched. If the AZ SOS didn't ask the right questions, Onaka wasn't going to volunteer anything he didn't ask.

And why does it NOT say the PDF is a true copy??

That is what he apparently did at the bottom of the piece of paper that the PDF is supposed to be a copy of so he's not going to do it again.

So far as I can tell, this time he stuck to what the statute said:

(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, 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 relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

(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.

He wasn't going to reverify something that he already (more or less) verified.

Let's remember that former DOH director Chiyome Fukino referenced multiple records in one of the news releases that was supposed to confirm the authenticity of Obama's COLB. And also remember that she said his long-form was half-handwritten. Obama's PDF is obviously NOT half-handwritten. There may be all kinds of different documents on file ... some are "original" but this doesn't mean they were created in 1961.

Could be, and if that's true, the matter should be examined more closely. Fukino may have known what she was talking about and might actually have seen a document different from the one that was presented (in PDF copy) to the public.

I don't have all the answers, and don't need to go on making objections. It's just that the whole "obvious fraud" thing got on my nerves. If it's a fraud, it's not an awful one, not something that amateurs could readily detect as one, and not one singled by a hidden happy face.

47 posted on 01/03/2013 4:04:06 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: x
I want to be sure that I'm following the logic here.

If Person 1 asks if a copy of a received document is the true copy of a document in state files, and Person 2 says that the information on the received document matches the information in the state files, that is not the same thing, right?

Person 2 is getting around stating that the received document is an exact facsimile of a state-issued document or not, by leaping directly to what's contained in the document's lines. Would that be a correct assumption?

Would that not raise suspicions about the authenticity of the document itself, regardless of the information contained on the document?

Furthermore, Article IV Section 1 says:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Arizona should have been given direct access to the original public records, absent Congressional action. Hawaii's state privacy laws do not supercede Arizona's Constitutional "full faith and credit" access to Hawaii's records. And yet, Hawaii turned away Arizona's legitimate officers who went to Hawaii to inspect the actual public document.

Does that look like the actions of a state with nothing to hide?

-PJ

48 posted on 01/03/2013 4:29:48 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. Source

So as I understand it, "full faith and credit" means Arizona has to accept that Hawaii's laws and judicial decisions apply in Hawaii. I don't know how far that applies to public records -- there are arguments to be made on both sides -- but Arizona can't use the clause to undercut Hawaii's account of what its own records say. The clause would tend to support Hawaii more than Arizona in this case. More here.

49 posted on 01/03/2013 4:47:32 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: x
Arizona can't use the clause to undercut Hawaii's account of what its own records say.

I think I agree with that statement as far is it is limited to effect in Hawaii, but we're now talking about those records' effect in Arizona on Arizona law.

I know it's never been tested this way, but the Article speaks to how those records would be "proved," that is, Congressional action to the manner of proving. So the Constitution did not automatically imply that a state was forced to take another state's word on the matter.

Arizona could have demanded first-hand proof by visually inspecting Hawaii's records, if only to force Congress to exercise its power to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved."

-PJ

50 posted on 01/03/2013 5:10:53 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: x
I don't have all the paperwork in front of me, but it looks like he verified the information on the document in question matched and then that the specific items he was asked to verify matched.

I've already explained what Bennett asked for. It's why I asked about Onaka only verifying 12 items MINUS THREE OR FOUR items from the DOH's standard birth-record request form. By law, he's supposed to verify those facts.

If the AZ SOS didn't ask the right questions, Onaka wasn't going to volunteer anything he didn't ask

The "right questions"??? We're talking about a standard form that the DOH's own website said is what must be used to apply for a letter of verification. It's right here:

Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

link
That is what he apparently did at the bottom of the piece of paper that the PDF is supposed to be a copy of so he's not going to do it again.

Sorry, but he didn't do it at all, so there's no way to "do it again."

So far as I can tell, this time he stuck to what the statute said:

Well, no, he didn't. Again, the statute says: "any other information that the applicant provides to be verified" ... Bennett provided the standard request form. Onaka did NOT verify ANY of the information from the standard request form, with the only possible exception of place of birth, but this one particular item is based upon an unofficial document. And, Bennett asked for information as to whether this was a TRUE copy. A certified copy of a birth certificate will say that it's a true copy in the registrar's signature block. Onaka REFUSED to verify this information. By law, he supposed to verify the information that is provided.

Could be, and if that's true, the matter should be examined more closely. Fukino may have known what she was talking about and might actually have seen a document different from the one that was presented (in PDF copy) to the public.

Apparently she saw a completely different document than Obama's PDF. After leaving the DOH, she told a reporter that Obama's original Certificate of Live Birth was "half-handwritten." The PDF is not. Thanks for admitting that the DOH has not verified that Obama's PDF is legally valid.

I don't have all the answers, and don't need to go on making objections. It's just that the whole "obvious fraud" thing got on my nerves. If it's a fraud, it's not an awful one, not something that amateurs could readily detect as one, and not one singled by a hidden happy face.

A red flag is a red flag is a red flag. You've basically admitted this really was an obvious fraud, it's pretty silly to bemoan one of the obvious red flags. I

51 posted on 01/03/2013 9:04:42 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Congress has basically already addressed this through the Federal Rules of Evidence. It says that a certified record is considered self-authenticating if the custodian of the document certifies that it is a correct copy of the original record ... and of course, such a document must actually be submitted to a court or proper legal body where it can be inspected for authenticity. It’s no surprise Obama has never submitted ANY of his alleged birth records in a court of law.


52 posted on 01/03/2013 9:12:39 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Thanks for the response. The relevant phrase in your link is this:

The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

So you can't just say, "Tell me what's in all the fields." You have to specify the information that you have in a given field and ask if it's correct.

Even though we know what is supposed to be in all the fields according to the PDF released to the public, you still have to provide the specific answer yo want verified for each item on the form. You don't find this in the specific statute about verification, but I suspect it comes from other laws about releasing information to third parties.

This is supposed to be a copy of the first page of the request, the form Bennett filled out:

I couldn't read it at first, but I think I can see what you're saying. It looks like Onaka read the items on the form as identifiers specifying which document he was supposed to check, not as items to be checked. That could be the usual way such forms are treated. Of course we know who's birth certificate it's supposed to be, but bureaucrats are supposed to go by the book.

Bennett thought he was going to get a specific verification of all the items on the form and the items on the sheet. He didn't get that. Whether this was some special dodge on Onaka's part or whether it was standard operation procedure for Hawaii DOH is something you could find out if you had other copies of requests for verification and their answers. Barring that, I don't think you can assume that it's a clever dodge.

Sorry, but he didn't do it at all, so there's no way to "do it again."

Once for the short form. Once for the long form. Once in this letter. Maybe Onaka was lying all those times, but it looks to me like he attested to the validity of the information 3 times.

You've basically admitted this really was an obvious fraud, it's pretty silly to bemoan one of the obvious red flags.

I never said it was a fraud, or an obvious fraud -- or authentic. I don't know enough about documents and imaging to decide. Nothing looks obviously fraudulent to me, but what do I know? I do know a tiny bit about fountain pens and manual typewriters, and that makes me think that some of the explanations of why the PDF was fraud were obviously wrong-headed, maybe even stupid. If you subscribed to those theories, I don't mean anything personal, my point is, if it's a forgery there's nothing obvious about it, and the most obvious explanations of a forgery were flawed enough to make us really question the whole "obvious fraud" idea.

If you're referring to Dr. Fukino, my idea was that people can't simply dismiss her comment out of hand. One can't simply assume that she didn't see the document or that she didn't get a good look, or that she didn't know what she was looking at. One has to at least admit the possibility that she may have been right about her comments and that there was something fraudulent about the copy that was released. That doesn't prove that the document was forged, though. Any or all of those objections may still be true. But her comment increases the possibility that the PDF may have been a fake.

53 posted on 01/05/2013 8:57:12 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: x
So you can't just say, "Tell me what's in all the fields." You have to specify the information that you have in a given field and ask if it's correct.

I'm going to stop you here, because this is basically what Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. appeared to be doing in the last part of the letter of verification to AZ SOS Bennett when Onaka wrote that the "information matches." But Bennett didn't even make such a request. He did request verification of the information in the standard request form and Onaka punted on that.

It looks like Onaka read the items on the form as identifiers specifying which document he was supposed to check, not as items to be checked. That could be the usual way such forms are treated.

The laws and procedures that butter quoted make it pretty clear that the registrar is supposed to verify ALL information that is specifically requested. I don't get the feeling that there is a "usual way" such forms are treated, because the state of Hawaii stalled forever with Bennett's request while they responded immediately to the MDEC.

Bennett thought he was going to get a specific verification of all the items on the form and the items on the sheet. He didn't get that. Whether this was some special dodge on Onaka's part or whether it was standard operation procedure for Hawaii DOH is something you could find out if you had other copies of requests for verification and their answers. Barring that, I don't think you can assume that it's a clever dodge.

Bennett was instructed by the state of Hawaii on how to request the information. I'm pretty sure he had a reasonable expectation that all the information he requested would be specifically verified since he was told exactly what to do. As far as a "clever dodge," I don't believe that's how I characterized Onaka's evasion of the missing verifications.

Once for the short form. Once for the long form. Once in this letter. Maybe Onaka was lying all those times, but it looks to me like he attested to the validity of the information 3 times.

He wasn't asked about the short form, at least not in terms of providing any official verification. At one point, the spokesbabe for the DOH reported that Onaka THOUGHT he could see "pieces" of an embossed seal on the jpg of the short form. That's not how a registrar attests to the validity of the information in a legally valid birth certificate. We really don't need to make excuses for him. This is clearly an insufficent verification. It's why the KS SOS felt like he needed to try to get a verification in which the registrar would confirm whether the information was "identical." Onaka PUNTED on that request too.

I never said it was a fraud, or an obvious fraud -- or authentic. I don't know enough about documents and imaging to decide. Nothing looks obviously fraudulent to me, but what do I know?

You said: "Could be, and if that's true, the matter should be examined more closely. Fukino may have known what she was talking about and might actually have seen a document different from the one that was presented (in PDF copy) to the public." By admitting there's sufficient reason to examine the document more closely and that there may be different documents, then you are admitting there are obvious signs of fraud that have been brought up. You're trying to deflect from these red flags by talking about fountain pens and manual typewriters. Sorry, but whining about that when you've acknowledged the other problems is pointless.

54 posted on 01/05/2013 9:45:53 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I'm going to stop you here, because this is basically what Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. appeared to be doing in the last part of the letter of verification to AZ SOS Bennett when Onaka wrote that the "information matches." But Bennett didn't even make such a request. He did request verification of the information in the standard request form and Onaka punted on that.

I'm learning (I hope) as I go. So far as I know, you can get an overall verification of the information on document by submitting the form. Then, if you have specific information about what's on the form you can submit that information separately and get confirmation that it is or isn't correct. The information on the form is for identification of the document. And it's "verified" in the overall verification of the document.

If you have examples of other forms submitted and verifications returned you can see whether you get all the fields on your form verified separately. If it turns out that in other cases you do get such a verification of every item on the form as well as of other items submitted separately, then we can discuss why Onaka departed from procedure in this case, but if not, all the chatter is pointless.

By admitting there's sufficient reason to examine the document more closely and that there may be different documents, then you are admitting there are obvious signs of fraud that have been brought up.

Nonsense. I never said there were obvious signs of fraud in the document. Fukino's story may be true or not. It hardly qualifies as an obvious sign of fraud.

I'm skeptical about whether she saw what she said she saw, but was extending you an olive branch by admitting that her statement was better evidence than most of what you have -- that there just might possibly be something in it, in contrast to all the other dead ends. Maybe it's time to take that olive branch back.

You're trying to deflect from these red flags by talking about fountain pens and manual typewriters. Sorry, but whining about that when you've acknowledged the other problems is pointless.

What whining? I'm crowing. It's not "whining" if you win. I was right about those things and at least some of you guys were horribly, stupidly, abysmally, moronically wrong. I don't like to brag and I wasn't actually crowing when I wrote it, but it seems appropriate in this case.

55 posted on 01/06/2013 11:20:22 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: x
So far as I know, you can get an overall verification of the information on document by submitting the form.

Not exactly. By submitting the form, you can get verification of the existence of a document on record. The information would be requested separately, which the AZ SOS did in his cover letter. Here's the relevant part of the statute. The form is a policy as stated on the DOH website that tells someone how to apply for a letter of verification:

(from §338-14.3) ... the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, 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 relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

So the law says a verification of the existence of a record is provided upon making a request. Then if someone provides more information to be verified, the department shall verify the facts as stated by the applicant. So the applicant has to state those facts separately in the request.

The information on the form is for identification of the document.

Unless you request verification of that same information as was done by SOS Bennett.

And it's "verified" in the overall verification of the document.

No, the statute says that the state SHALL provide verification of "any other information that the applicant provides to be verified" and that the "the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant ..." IOW, if no facts are provided, then no facts are verified. If facts are provided, then each fact would be verified, which explains why Alvin T. Onaka itemized a list of facts for Bennett, but did NOT do so for the MDEC or KS SOS Kobach.

I never said there were obvious signs of fraud in the document.

This has already been explained. You volunteered the idea that Fukino may have seen a document different from what Obama provided as a PDF, and you volunteered the idea that it should be examined more closely. That's basically an admission that there are obvious signs of fraud, else why make such suggestions?? If Fukino saw a different document, then Obama's PDF is not legitimate. That's what that would mean. If you don't mean it, then don't say it.

What whining? I'm crowing. It's not "whining" if you win. I was right about those things and at least some of you guys were horribly, stupidly, abysmally, moronically wrong. I don't like to brag and I wasn't actually crowing when I wrote it, but it seems appropriate in this case.

Wow, you can't even agree with yourself within the course of one paragraph: "I'm crowing" followed up by "I wasn't actually crowing when I wrote it ..."

56 posted on 01/06/2013 10:24:19 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: edge919
1) Submit a form request and you get a form answer. You can't say, "Oh and by the way, treat this form request in another way because I'm Arizona's Secretary of State." Bennett was satisfied that the answer he got corresponded to the forms he submitted and the answers he gave. There may still be some deep mystery behind all this, but I'm with him. You can't read a verification as a triple-secret hidden-meaning refusal to verify.

2) That's what I thought we were arguing about. Maybe we still are, but reading through the first part of your post I see a lot of quibbling about the language that I used, but no progress towards a conclusion. I have to wonder if you changed your mind and just wanted to go on arguing to keep the ill-will going.

This stuff is not my life. As I said, I'm trying to figure things out as I go along. I don't have much patience with disputes that simply quarrel with language to score petty points but don't affect the overall outcome. If I wanted to pursue this further I'd want to see the big picture -- just what your point is -- rather than keep going around in circles. If you changed your mind, I'd want to know that rather than simply go on arguing for the sake of arguing, but since this isn't going anywhere I doubt it would make much difference.

3) I see no obvious signs of fraud in the document. People who have said that they found obvious indications of forgery have been proven wrong. If there are other signs, they aren't unequivocal or immediately apparent. Maybe an expert could find them, but I couldn't, nor could most other posters.

You persist in taking the bare possibility of external evidence discrediting the document for obvious signs of fraud inside the document itself. Most people would know the difference. I suppose you probably know the difference as well, but are just being obnoxious about it for reasons of your own.

I am not pretending to be an expert on data imaging. I am not claiming that there is some incompetent forger at work whose mistakes I can easily see though. I am simply stating that if you want to pursue the matter, you have Fukino's statements to proceed from, rather than supposed gaps in Onaka's verification, or supposed "obvious" clues in the document itself. That is a far cry from making claims about "obvious fraud," as you almost certainly would admit if you weren't already committed to maintaining otherwise.

4) In my earlier posts I was simply making a factual observation about the mistakenness of people who claimed to see obvious signs of fraud in the document when they couldn't tell the difference between a felt-tip pen and a fountain pen or between a modern laser printer and a mechanical typewriter.

You chose to characterize this as "whining," even though I was right and those people were -- well, I can say it now -- stupidly mistaken. Though I wasn't emotional or gloating at the time of those discussions or when I posted to you, by this point, yes, I'm going to boast about it, even though I wasn't doing so at the time and was trying not to tread on anybody's toes. So far as I know I was patient and courteous during those arguments, but some people do bring out the malice in others.

5) You clearly aren't interested in responding to these points in a forthright manner, so I don't see any need to continue the discussion any further.

57 posted on 01/07/2013 1:45:21 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: x
1) Submit a form request and you get a form answer. You can't say, "Oh and by the way, treat this form request in another way because I'm Arizona's Secretary of State." Bennett was satisfied that the answer he got corresponded to the forms he submitted and the answers he gave. There may still be some deep mystery behind all this, but I'm with him. You can't read a verification as a triple-secret hidden-meaning refusal to verify.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The AZ SOS was INSTRUCTED by Hawaii that filling out the form wasn't enough and then they made him jump through a bunch of hoops that they didn't do when contacted by the MDEC or KS SOS. The law is clear. The state SHALL verify any information provided by the applicant and that the facts are verified as stated by the applicant. If they drop any of the facts, then those facts cannot be presumed to have been verified.

2) ---

Sorry, but this was rambling load of nonsense. I can't decipher what you're trying to say.

I see no obvious signs of fraud in the document. People who have said that they found obvious indications of forgery have been proven wrong.

I've left off more of the rambling. Again,the suggestions you made don't make sense unless you're admitting there are obvious signs of fraud. There would be no point in speculating about something you don't believe to be true at all. As for anything being proven wrong, that's not the case here. Certainly excuses have been made, but not very good ones.

You chose to characterize this as "whining," even though I was right and those people were -- well, I can say it now -- stupidly mistaken.

You say this repeatedly, but you've done nothing to back it up.

5) You clearly aren't interested in responding to these points in a forthright manner, so I don't see any need to continue the discussion any further.

... so you say after writing a rambling essay.

58 posted on 01/07/2013 8:06:07 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson