Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion
“Actually, what Onaka legally confirmed to Bennett was that the HI birth record is not legally valid.”

That is your personal opinion. This is a legal matter. Only if your legal opinion is affirmed by a judge, state SOS or AG would your opinion become an “actual” legal fact. That has not happened. So far I have not seen even a single lawyer willing to argue in support of your opinion and lawyers will argue any side of any issue if paid enough or motivated for other reasons, but they haven’t embraced your interpretation of what “actually” happened.

What did “actually” happen, IMO (IANAL either) is that Bennett, rightly or wrongly, interpreted the HI “authentication” by Onaka to provide sufficient legal basis to establish a claim to AZ by HI that “legal records” of some kind affirm that Barry was born in HI making Barry eligible as an NBC (under the legal theory that only US soil birth matters) and Bennett honored HI’s claim under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

75 posted on 12/03/2012 8:23:12 AM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: Seizethecarp

That’s how Bennett interpreted it even though he had an attorney inform him that by law Onaka’s verification must be legally presumed to confirm that Obama’s birth facts CANNOT be verified.

IOW, Bennett chose to ignore what the attorney told him so that he could misinterpret Onaka’s disclosure to mean exactly the opposite of what it legally means.


83 posted on 12/03/2012 11:26:09 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson