Orly has been a determined worker and I admire that, but she hasn’t always gotten her details right. I suspect that she is so busy she has failed to make the FOIA requests to see Bennett’s COMPLETE request, or to look up the Hawaii statutes that govern how Onaka had to respond.
HRS 338-14.3 says that Onaka must verify any information submitted by a qualified applicant if he can certify that was the way the event actually happened - IOW if they have a legally valid record claiming that, since a legally valid record is prima facia evidence and thus has the presumption of accuracy (which is ultimately only overruled by evidence to the contrary).
Bennett sent in an application form for a verification, requesting that Onaka verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama. If any of those facts was claimed on a legally-valid record that specific fact would have to be verified by Onaka in his letter of verification, according to HRS 338-14.3.
The only one of those words that was even MENTIONED in Onaka’s verification was the word Honolulu (which shows that he was looking at the application and not just Bennett’s letter asking for ADDITIONAL verifications, since that letter didn’t mention Honolulu at all). But if Onaka was verifying that the birth city was Honolulu, then he would also have to verify that the birth island was Oahu, since Honolulu has always been on Oahu. He doesn’t. By this we can tell that all he verified through the use of the word “Honolulu” is the existence of a birth certificate which “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth. He’s verifying the existence of a birth certificate.
The fact that he leaves out all those other words (male, Aug 4, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama) - even though he verifies that those are indeed the CLAIMS on the record they have - means that the record they have has to be non-valid. If it was valid and claimed those things he would have had to verify each of those individual birth facts on his verification.
Attorney Larry Klayman’s letter to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer contains the documentation for all of this. It can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
Another explanation to make the laws easier to understand can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf
What people need to know is that Onaka discloses things not only by what he says, but even moreso by what he DOESN’T say. Look on his verifications and you never see the words male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama. The only LAWFUL reason for him to leave out those facts is if he can’t verify them as true, and the only reason he couldn’t verify them as true if they are claimed on a record (as Onaka verified for Obama’s claimed facts) is if the record itself is legally non-valid.
This is not wishful thinking, nor is it an attempt to discredit anybody. It is a simple statement of Hawaii law.
The key to exposing him has always been the media (at large), just like it was with the far less of a crime Watergate break-in. Without media pressure on the elected "representatives," the issue is nonexistent in the eyes of the politicians. Clearly, the media is fully on his side and wouldn't dare seek the truth in this case. The so called "conservative" media isn't even willing to go there.
For a comparison, look at the Fast and Furious crime. If the media were legitimate in seeking the truth, Holder would have been ousted long ago. Yet, he remains in light of Issa's attempts to get to him, because of the lack of public pressure brought about by exposure in the media. Then, there's the "NBPP" case of clear voter intimidation caught on film. Most of the media was silent there as well. Result, nothing came of it. Benghazi will no doubt turn out the same way.
Barry's the first (half) black president that was popularly "elected." Because of the slavery issue in this country, the powers that be have determined that it's acceptable for Barry to usurp the presidency for 8 years.
The media is against us on this issue, which they have successfully stigmatized.
Not a single person in the judiciary nor congress will give this issue the light of day it clearly deserves. That much is clear, after 4 & 1/2 years of trying....by many.