See my previous post.
The standard birther way of interpreting words is: "If there is any possible way on earth that we could read this as a failure to fully, absolutely confirm in every specific possible point, that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on August whatever of 1961, and that the HDOH received at that time (August 1961) the required paperwork from the doctor, and issued a true and genuine birth certificate, then that equals a 'refusal to confirm the details of Obama's birth.'"
Jeff, you’re being stupid. The date of birth was not on that letter of verification. When Ken Bennett was asked why not he said he assumed it was an error. He assumed that what he received from Onaka was wrong. Even Bennett doesn’t deny that Onaka failed to verify what was asked of him. He just assumed that Onaka MEANT to verify it. Sounds a whole lot like “judge’s knowledge” - the sharia method of naking legal determinations... But Bennett acknowledged that Onaka did NOT verify the date of birth.
And the statute says he must verify what is submitted if he can.
Why wouldn’t he? Do you agree with Bennett that Onaka’s letter of verification was a mistake and he actually MEANT to verify all that stuff even though he didn’t verify it?