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

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: 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 ]

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