Replies

Just a follow-up to that post.

Onaka verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record on file. That includes, for instance, date of birth.

But they never verified that the original record is legally valid. So they never verified that Aug 4, 1961 is the legally-valid date of birth for Obama. That’s precisely my point. All they would verify is that the record CLAIMS that.

This whole verification is that they have a record and that the record claims the same things as were on Obama’s posted long-form.

But the fact that they went through all these gyrations - and ultimately wouldn’t release a thing to Bennett until he allowed them to get away with these gyrations - in order to specifically NOT have to say that any of those facts are true, legally-probative claim, speaks for itself.

You can say, “Well, we know that they are verifying the truth - legal validity - of an Aug 4, 1961 birth because they said that what’s on the posted long-form (an Aug 4, 1961 birth) matches what they have on their record.” But that requires one other given, according to logic and geometric-type proofs: It requires that their record be legally valid.

Sort of like this:

If A(posted BC) = B (BC on file) and B is legally valid, then A=legally valid.

But Onaka never said that B is legally valid. So the logic you’re presenting amounts to: If A=B then A is legally valid. Doesn’t work.

And it’s especially suspicious that they would only say A=B, when what they were legally required to answer from the submitted verification form was whether C (just a fact, like born on Aug 4, 1961 - regardless of whether it is on A or B) is legally valid.

They refused to do that. And I’m asking you why. Saying that A=B is very, very different than saying C is legally valid. Why did they opt for “A=B” rather than “C is valid”?