Yes, everything as stated by the applicant, IF INDEED IT IS THE CASE THAT THE INFORMATION MATCHES WHAT IS IN THEIR RECORDS. What part of "...is for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant' don't you understand? Presumably, if there are facts stated by the applicant that cannot be verified then those particular facts would not be verified. Ya think?
The only thing that is verified is what Onaka actually says that he verifies. If he says “I verify that we have a birth record on file for Barack Hussein Obama’ it does NOT mean that he verifies they have a purple, orange, or valid BC for Obama. A verification only verifies the point it actually says it verifies.
Ok, and what does he explicitly state that he verifies? I have quoted his words here numerous times.
Cordially,
Please read posts 201, 214, and 216.
The only statement relevant to what Bennett requested to be verified where Onaka clearly verified anything specific was when he said that he verified that they have a birth record on file for Barack Hussein Obama II which claims a Honolulu birth.
The rest of it either addresses something he wasn’t asked (the “information” matches) or doesn’t say what it is verifying.
A verification of the birth date would be certification that the birth date is as stated by the applicant. But Onaka never said anything about a birth date. He didn’t verify that. The only thing related to Bennett’s actual request that Onaka used a clear sentence to describe exactly what he was verifying was his verification that they have a birth record for Obama.
But I explained all this stuff in the blog post. I’ve given illustrations here to show how crazy it is to say that verifying that a record exists means that EVERYTHING anybody would ever suggest as the birth facts has to be true. Your way would mean they could never verify the existence of a record unless the requestor had every fact correct. And a person looking at a letter of verification would never be able to know what was actually being verified, because there doesn’t have to be anything on the letter which says exactly how the facts were “stated by the applicant”. A person could take the letter of verification and claim to have stated ANY facts and say the letter proves that those facts are all correct - since a verification automatically is a signed blank check of “Whatever he said, I certify it.”
You aren’t engaging with any of my points. It is a waste of time to communicate with you. I’m not going to waste my time any more.
Klayman has laid out the legal facts and logic. Other attorneys have agreed. The most convincing proof of what a person believes is how they behave, and judging by the way they have behaved in their request for verification and the way they presented the resulting verification to the court, the MDEC STRONGLY agrees with what Klayman has said.
That is an admission against interest - one of the strongest forms of evidence there is. That fact will not be lost on lawyers without a personal or political agenda. I just hope and pray that some of the people Klayman has contacted fit that description. If not, then this country is going to Hell in a handbasket and nothing you or I do is going to change that.
Au revoir. It’s been fun talking right past each other. (not)