Onaka never verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. He was asked on a verification application to verify that Obama was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu and he did not verify either of those items - even though the law required him to do so if he could certify that the birth really happened that way.
He verified that they have a (legally non-valid) birth record that CLAIMS (indicates) that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that’s a totally different thing.
MDEC should get their a$$es handed to them, legally speaking - because they knew darned good and well that Onaka had not verified any actual facts. If they thought Onaka had truly verified Obama’s birth facts as true, they would have submitted a standard application and expected Onaka to verify those facts. They didn’t do that, though - because they knew Onaka COULDN’T verify any birth facts.
And it was the MDEC filing in that Orly Taitz lawsuit that made me realize that I had it right. Even Obama’s supporting lawyers understood what Onaka had really done in that verification.
do the SOS and AGs in every state have these letters as of today, I wonder??
I assume there were some delivery notifications (return receipts) to Klayman’s office??
Can these elected ‘governmant officials’ now admit that they are in receipt of these letters??
He verified that they have a (legally non-valid) birth record that CLAIMS (indicates) that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that’s a totally different thing.
I doubt at this point that Obama was even born a citizen. Too much smoke.
But could you explain in an easy way how a birth record in HI that claims he was born there is not valid, because on its face, what else do we have? I have a birth record in the county of Los Angeles that claims I was born there.
I read klayman’s letter and understand it. I just am not clear on the wording of how matching the document on file is not the same as verifying. I’m sure it isn’t but what should Onaka have said?