Posted on 01/03/2013 12:29:36 PM PST by butterdezillion
Double AAGH. I biffed the middle column. Should be:
Bennett’s request.....8-7-1961.....8-8-1961.....August-8 1961
Onaka’s response......8-7-61.......8-8-61.........Aug-8 1961
WH image.................8-7-61.......8-8-61.........Aug-8 1961
“What’s your point?”
-TXnMA
LucyT pinged me with msg 105 of this thread. I began reading commentary from several posters on the thread and decided to add my 2 cents.
“That is precisely why Butter’s “script” (which I’ve been editing) calls for a member of Congress (who has “standing” if anyone does) to bring suit in a judicial court.”
- TXnMA
A member of Congress does not have standing to bring suit against a usurper in the Office of the President because Congress does have Constitutional authority to challenge, examine or question the citizenship status of a U.S. Citizen.
With respect of citizenship, Congress is only authorized by the Constitution to write legislation as it pertains to immigration and naturalization. Congress could conduct hearings, subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents; but it could only refer the information gathered and put in a report to the DOJ or a Special Prosecutor.
Only the DOJ or a Special Prosecutor could bring suit after Congress conducted hearings. A member of Congress does not have standing. Do you understand that your wrong and misleading people who have devoted a lot of time and energy into exposing an usurper? Stop challenging people who know what their talking about and start taking notes. There is no need to reply with gibberish on matters you know very little about.
What would prohibit a Congressman from filing a lawsuit or having standing? Have Congressmen never sued in order to get a judicial ruling on the Constitutionality of something?
I will also ask you here: How can I see the registry of Certificates of Naturalization containing Obama’s name, that you said you saw? Specifically, where can it be seen and how do I get access to it?
If you’re afraid somebody will mess with it if it is known how to access it, Freepmail me.
But that may not have been the established procedure for the Hawaii DOH. Their procedure may have been to use the items on the form to identify the document and verify that such a document existed in the records and to give specific and individual verification only to items submitted separately for verification on a supplemental sheet.
What counts here isn't what Bennett wanted or what he thought he would get, it's how the Hawaii Registry processed the form as a matter of course. If you had the paperwork submitted in other, similar cases you might be able to determine if they followed their usually procedure or violated it. Without the information about other applications, you can't assume that you've proved what you claim to have proved.
The law is clear:
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, SHALL (ed: MANDATORY) furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES TO BE VERIFIED (ed - ANY, that means whatever is submitted) relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
As long as Bennett submitted it for verification, it HAS to be verified. They can’t pick and choose. If they don’t say they verify it, they didn’t verify it. Period.
Policies are not allowed to trump statute. Furthermore, a policy that isn’t published cannot be in effect, according to HI statute. Nowhere does the HDOH website say that the information to be verified has to be on a sheet other than the application form they provide to be used to request both certified copies and letters of verification.
Show me where that policy/requirement was published (that they only verify facts submitted on a paper BESIDES the actual application) before Bennett’s request was submitted, and then you could validly make that case.
Furthermore, if they can’t verify stuff from the actual application, then where did Onaka pull the word “Honolulu” from, to even mention it in his verification?
Butter has good intentions, but she makes a speculation, interprets the law in such a way that proves her speculation true, claims her speculation has been legally confirmed, then speculates further upon said confirmed claim. Repeat and rinse.
Your hypothesis is correct according to the HDoH website documentation on when and how they will confirm the existence of a vital record in lieu of a copy. You submit a form requesting confirmation, they confirm that such a record exists. If you submit additional information to be confirmed separate from the original form, they will confirm each item requested.
That’s what they did for Bennet.
I'm no expert in any of this, but if Onaka had verified the document as a whole and the items submitted on the separate sheet and didn't mention where Obama was supposedly born, wouldn't that leave the matter with Bennett still open? Wouldn't you still find fault with Onaka's response?
It may be common procedure to include the city and date of birth on every verification, but whatever the ordinary procedure, Onaka was going to include a birthplace as a way of establishing the main point at issue in this case.
You’re just flat out wrong, butter, about your legal interpretation of that statute.
“Any other information” means any information submitted specified in addendum to (i.e. separately from) the official HDoH form used to ask for a verification.
Hawaii supplied “a verification of the existence of a certification” and confirmed the individual items that Bennett supplied in addendum.
Thanks for the response. It takes a while to sort these things out. It looks like Bennett himself wasn’t clear about the procedure and that accounts for much of the confusion.
You guys are butchering what the law says. The law says that ANY submitted information SHALL be verified. No policy could violate that statute, and no policy is stated anywhere which says that the request has to be on a different page or that they don’t have to verify a submitted fact if the person doesn’t have it on a different page. If it’s not a published policy, then it CANNOT apply. So you guys are arguing something that you have absolutely no substantiation for, and I have substantiation against.
You’re just trying to muddy the waters with stuff that you’re pulling out of your rear ends, ‘cause you sure as heck aren’t getting it from Hawaii statutes or any published/effective policy.
And even your butchering doesn’t work, because Onaka never even mentioned Aug 4, 1961. And the main points in question in this case were date, place, and parents. None of those were on the page you say that they had
Onaka verified the EXISTENCE of the document.
BT you have just revealed yourself as a troll who had to come in support of x, in typical troll twosome fashion. This is picture-perfect form for how the disinformation campaigns always happen.
I’m disappointed in you.
You have NOTHING in the statute or in the published policy statements to support what you are saying. What is published contradicts what you are saying. And the manner of your appearance and x’s saying that you confirmed what he/she said.... it’s all part of the standard script for disinformation.
Good-bye.
You said” If you submit additional information to be confirmed separate from the original form, they will confirm each item requested.”
Where does it say that? Give me the exact words.
I posted a C&P from the HDOH web page, saying that they will verify ANY information submitted to be requested, without any regard to what paper it was submitted on, and Bennett made it clear that he submitted for verification the facts on his actual application form.
All the stuff that the HDOH says they require a person to furnish in order to get a certificate or a verification is included on that form. There is no need for any other paper to be used, and there is no stated policy regarding what paper has to be used.
Substantiate your claim.
Where in the addendum did Bennett ever mention Honolulu?
You are so busted.
I know how you process information, so before you ask how I know that my interpretation is correct ... I called the HDoH yesterday when I read this thread.
In that statute “other information” means anything you supply in addendum to the official form. The official form is used specifically to confirm the existence of a record - as the statute reads. That’s the purpose of the form itself - does such and such record exist? If you want any other details, you must supply them.
Wrong. I’m sorry you’re disappointed. It wasn’t unexpected though.
You can look on the HDoH website and download a copy of the form that one must submit to obtain a verification.
Hawaii first denied Bennett’s request because he didn’t use the proper form or provide a legal justification that he was entitled to the verification. Bennett’s later emails indicated that he subsequently supplied the appropriate form, gave his legal justification, and asked specifically via email or written letter (i.e. in addendum) for certain other details to be verified.
When did Bennett supply “Honolulu”?
And when did either MDEC or KS Kris Kobach ever provide the official form?
There is no stated policy so that can not be the policy in effect. So like I said before, show me where that policy is specifically stated, and then you or anybody at the HDOH will be able to make that case. It is clear that Bennett requested that info from the form be verified; what published policy excuses them from doing so?
If there isn’t a published policy, then you and the HDOH (if indeed you called them) have no legal grounds for anything you’re saying. And the HDOH has to explain where they got the word “Honolulu” from on that verification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.