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.
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 ..."