The media only published half of Bennett’s request. You can see the whole thing at the end of Klayman’s letter to Bob Bauer, posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
A verification is not about what you or I know about geography or Obama’s gender. The point is that if a person submits a fact to be verified, Onaka HAS to verify it if he can. And beyond any question/debate he failed to verify male, Aug 4, 1961 (which is critical to eligibility), Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama (which are also critical to eligibility).
The only lawful reason to leave those things out is if they are not claimed on a legally-valid record. Onaka verified that they ARE claimed on the record at the HDOH. That leaves only one reason for those facts to not be verified: the record itself is non-valid.
There’s no such thing as a blanket verification. The statute says that ANY submitted information has to be verified if it can be certified as the way the event actually happened. That means each individual fact. The way to separate out the facts that are true from the facts that are aren’t is by verbally saying every fact that is true and leaving out every fact that isn’t. Eliminates all the guesswork.
That is your theory. But it wasn't Onaka's understanding of his role. Look at how long it took before each of the document images (or whatever they are) was released. The understanding of the registry about its own role and duties was and isn't what you thought or think it is.
I've had some trouble with the Klayman documents, but he has a similar problem. He's always jumping to conclusions, always assuming that there are no alternatives to his own assumptions. When somebody confidently keeps saying "the only possibility is ..." it may be
I will try to find the Hawaiian law about this after the holiday, but given the history of all that's happened to this point, I don't think you are right about specific and blanket verifications.