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 ..."
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.