You can offer the long recitation of many tangetial matters. I will again merely point out that when Hawaii states --
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
-- a long recitation that tries to pass off the conclusion that "Dr. Onaka refused to verify any birth facts" looks contrived (to state it most kindly). At a minimum, it can safely be said that he verfied the fact the Hawaii vital records reflect BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Right?
A colleague’s communication with someone in authority at the vital records office in Hawaii . . .
Here we have a double-hearsay statement that traces back to an anonymous source. Yeah, that's reliable.
this worker said . . . if they issued ANY letters of verification it would cause people to wonder why THEY WILL NEVER ISSUE A VERIFICATION FOR OBAMA.
That anonymous worker, supposing such person actually exists, has obviously been proven wrong in his/her prediction. Right?
[the] worker basically said flat-out that they cannot issue a verification for Obama’s birth facts,
And that worker was flat-out proven wrong when Dr. Onaka point-blank verified Obama's Hawaiian birth.
Onaka distanced himself from this verification in every way possible.
Like by allowing the verfication (plus two others) as to Obama's Hawaiian birth to issue under his name on his office letterhead? If that is "distancing" onseself, then what, pray tell, would "getting close" mean to you?
None of this analysis is happening in a vacuum; there is a long history that informs my analysis, as well as the actual statutes and the request Bennett actually submitted[.]
Dr. Onaka's verification of Obama's Hawaiian birth was sufficient for Bennett to conclude Obama was properly on the state ballot. That fact further informs my analysis, and given the Full, Faith & Credit clause of our Constitution, Bennett's decision was as expected.
Insofar as the SCOAL takes notice of any of this, it is but one more reason why Klayman will lose.
“1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Does the word indicating mean the same as proving or certifying?
Onaka never verified the truth of any fact about Obama’s birth. Show me any place where Onaka clearly and specifically says HE VERIFIES that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama.
Bennett knew that Aug 4, 1961 at the very least was never verified. He assumed it was a mistake. I asked you whether that is an OK way to do legal business here in the USA. You wouldn’t answer so I’ll ask again. When a witness (to whether the claim is made on a valid record) gives an answer under oath, is it legally acceptable for a public official to assume they meant something else, without any evidence or clarification?
I’ll add this: You speak and think like a Fogblower. You blew off Janice Okubo’s legal responses to me and assumed that I made up stories. Those who know me can tell you that I don’t make up stories. Just as the worker stated to my colleague, Hawaii has never issued a verification of Obama’s birth facts. They issued a verification of the existence of a birth record, and they certified it in a way that violated Hawaii statute. They used a form that Janice Okubo, in a legal/formal communication, told me doesn’t exist. No problem, huh?