Thanks for pinging. =)
The thing about these alterations is that the HI AG would have no legal basis to require those changes - ESPECIALLY the requirement that Bennett withdraw the request form, because that is what he is legally supposed to be able to ask for: verification that those particular facts are true according to legal evidentiary standards.
There would be no legal excuse for the HI AG’s office to demand that to be withdrawn. The HI AG clearly used a threat: if you don’t withdraw that request we’re going to say you aren’t eligible to get a response from us, and then you’re going to be grilled over a media fire.
He played chicken with Bennett. And Bennett blinked. BUT at the same time, the HI AG made it clear to Bennett - and to anybody who understands what really happened - that they CANNOT verify the truth of those facts, because Obama’s record is late and amended and thus not legally valid. The special requests of verification provided an “out” for the HDOH to APPEAR to be verifying the information without actuallly legally doing so.
IOW, it took 8 weeks to come up with a win-win for both Bennett (who wanted to satisfy those pressuring him without actually having to leave Obama off the ballot) and the HDOH (who wanted to appear to verify the claims in the court of public opinion, without having anything LEGAL that Arpaio could eventually charge them with).
But, as a non-lawyer, I think they are still open for charges of fraud, conspiracy, and possibly perjury despite all the legalistic shenanigans that they pulled. So Bennet can say he is happy and avoid further criticism that he is a “birther,” but Sheriff Joe, who has representatives on the ground in Hawaii as we speak, can make the HHDOH officials quite uncomfortable.
He has indicated that he will be taking a significant new step soon (end of May? end of June?). I would hope that this would involve criminal charges, though I see how it might involve a Grand Jury, also.
BTW, I have looked at all your material regarding why the certificate is amended, and still find the argument hard to follow. It seems that the gist of it is that if there are cash receipts involved, the certificate MUST be amended. When I read the HDOH statements, I wonder if they explicitly knew that they were confirming that there were receipts or whether they made a statement without consciously believing that they had indicated that the receipts existed.
Do you have any other independent confirmation that the BC is amended?