You live in a fantasy land, where a state verifying something is proof that the state doesn't verify something. I don't doubt your sincerity, but you probably aren't sane enough to cross a street without help.
You live in a fantasy land, where a state verifying something is proof that the state doesn't verify something. I don't doubt your sincerity, but you probably aren't sane enough to cross a street without help.
Mr. Rogers, this response is beneath you.
A verification can’t be a signed blank check. Do you acknowledge that? Only what is actually stated as verified is verified.
For instance, a person could take the verification that MDEC received, which says that the information contained in the image at xxx.gov “matches” the information contained in the real record, alter the content at xxx.gov to say that Obama was born to Mickey and Minnie Mouse - and argue to a judge using the argument that because a verification of anything is a verification of everything, blank-check fashion, Onaka just verified that Obama was born to Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Would you agree that this is NOT what the statute allows to happen?
Nowhere are the CORE facts stated as verified: male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama. Honolulu is mentioned but not verified. It is only said that the BC “indicates” (which in legal language means “claims”) Obama was born in HI. IOW, he’s just saying what the BC says. But if the BC was legally valid all those other facts would have to be verified, and they’re not.
Why weren’t they? What lawful reason allows for Onaka to leave those specific items unverified?