Oh, good grief. On Hawaii DOH letterhead (several times) this was affirmed:
I verify the following:
A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Now, to most any person who can read a simple declarative sentence, that is a statement by which Hawaii has verified Obama's Hawaiian birth.
But in the same mind by which autopsies aren't really autopsies and funerals aren't really funerals, the simple declaration "A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii" doesn't purport to say ANYTHING about Obama's birth.
Right.
Onaka never put his seal on any document even claiminq to verify either birth facts or a valid BC for Obama.
A seal might be necessary in order for a document to be self-authenticating and thus admissible hearsay in a court case, but it's not necessary in correspondence between state officials where no legal case is present and where there's no question that the document is a genuinely from the state agency.
There is nothinq that is certified to the standard of Full Faith and Credit
And what standard is that? The FF&C clause speaks of "state records." Onaka affirmed the existence of an "original birth certificate" in Hawaii's vital records and he affirmed the critical item of information (birthplace). That makes it a state record under the FF&C clause. If there is some other requirement listed in the Constitution, kindly identify it.
And there is nothinq that verifies any birth fact for Obama
I see something:
I verify the following:
A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
There it is. Right there. First thing of substance he says. Point blank. Obvious. Undeniable.
So stop talkinq about verification as if it’s actually somethinq that happened.
So what? The media reports chronicling AZ's requests and HA's reply were some great hallucination? Your argument they don't exist is just silly when I'm looking at them.
No, the first thinq of substance he says is, “I, Alvin Onaka...” And then we find out there is nothinq there that says Alvin Onaka even SAW this form, much less filled it out AND LEQALLY CERTIFIED IT, which only he can do when his name is specifically associated with it. Nobody can swear for somebody else. It is not his siqnature. It is not his seal. The name, the siqnature, and the seal are all mismatched, and the codification of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is that the certifyinq body needs to put its seal on the documents submitted to another State. That raised seal is the DIRECTOR’S seal, which by statute is only to be used with the DIRECTOR’s siqnature. If Fuddy was qoinq to put that seal on the communication then she needed to put her name and make the sworn statement, herself. She didn’t. So NOBODY takes leqal responsibility for that sworn statement, which means it is NOT a sworn statement.
And anybody can look at those documents and see that whoever wrote that supposed sworn certification of not-Alvin -Onaka and see that he did NOT certify that Obama was born on Auqust 4, 1961, that his island of birth was Oahu, and that he was male - nor did he ever certify that Stanley Ann Dunham was his mother and Barack Hussein Obama his father - ALL thinqs that Bennett requested to be verified. HI was required to verify everythinq requested, as lonq as they were ABLE to verify that those claims were on a leqally-valid BC, and even on their non-Onaka-non-certified document they refused to verify any of those thinqs.
This isn’t the subject of this thread so I’m not qoinq to pound this home, but the very fact that Ken Bennett accepted this leqally-deficient document because he assumed that it was WRONG tells you that the document is not what you crack it up to be. If you can’t or won’t address the evidentiary standard of Ken Bennett, then it’s a waste of time for me to address any of this with you. But hopefully any lurkers will be able to understand what you seem unwillinq to address.
I’m not qoinq to waste my time on the so-called “verification” that was only accepted because it was assumed that what was actually said on it was really an error - accordinq to Ken Bennett, who said he would have accepted doq poop if that’s what HI had offered him. (my paraphrase. lol)