I get that; I totally agree it was a non verification since they left the birth date out. Plus they could have submitted the actual DOCUMENT if that imbecile Bennett hadn’t completely let them off the hook.
What I’m asking is, how did the submission from HI open the doors to Zullo for other info? Was it that they’re more able to pin down WHO is the forger?
We won’t know for sure until the press conference, probably. But Corsi did mention that Zullo now knows that there are mutliple stamps of Onaka’s signature.
I was trying to figure out whether Onaka’s signature stamp would constitute a valid legal document, given that somebody put their initials right after it. For just general legal documents (not necessarily certifications, notaries, etc), the legal principle is that a signature is valid if the intent was for that person to sign it and be legally bound by the document. See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_signature_stamps_legal_for_use_in_signing_documents_and_checks
So if this “verification” was used or challenged in court, Onaka could either claim it to be a valid signature or NOT to be a valid signature. And determining the legal validity of this “verification” would require deposing both Onaka and the secretary and comparing their statements with other evidence such as emails, schedules, etc to determine whether Onaka ever intended to sign that particular “verification”.
IOW, what Mike said in the interview is right on track. Having those initials there is a way for Onaka to distance himself from that signature. He may have certified this document, or he may not have - which defeats the whole purpose of there being ANY signature there. If Onaka intended to be bound by that document there would be no initials. The initials are his way of APPEARING to certify the document without actually doing so. Just like all the other smokescreens with this document. It’s a consistent pattern.