“The fraud is plainly obvious.”
__
I beg your pardon? I thought we were discussing the legalities of Letters of Verification, and I believe I quoted the laws accurately.
If you believe I’m wrong, please tell me why. But retreating to an unsupported claim that “[t]he fraud is blatant” is nothing more than posturing, the position of someone who has nothing of substance to contribute.
Do you have a legal basis for rejecting the Letters of Verification? If so, don’t be shy, just speak up.
Otherwise, perhaps my description of your tactics as “dancing” may be too generous. I think “squirming” is more appropriate.
I don’t believe you have cited any specific statute. What specific statute?
Squirming? As in foot-dragging? As in questioning the manner in which Bennett does his job? As in making Bennett reword his requests? That kind of squirming?
Hawaiian 'vital records' can be fraudulent amendments that anyone can submit to the state to Hawaii, which they have accepted at face value. Hawaii would accept the word of anyone who claimed to have knowledge about an Hawaiian birth to produce vital records. The "legalities" of the Bennett letter are BS legalese.
This is what Onaka signed.
"I certify that the information contained in the vital records [for Obama] on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event."
Onaka said nothing about that the "vital event" or "facts" are true or true copy or abstract.
The only thing that Onaka verified is that he has a record. Onaka has no confidence about what he signed is true.