I’m working on re-posting this, with the PDF itself posted as HTML. But as I’m dealing with Buckeye Texan I’m wondering if the post should address what she’s saying, although it seems like she’s just saying “You’re wrong” without addressing why the items from the form were not verified (given that a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” is specifically required by HRS 338-14.3 to verify the LEGAL FACTS, not just what appears on a record that may or may not be legally valid).
Do I need to explain the difference between a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” (Please verify that these facts are legally true) and an additional request to verify what items are on a record and/or to verify that the information on a document matches what is on the record (which may or may not be legally valid)?
My post is mainly about the changes made to the request, based on Bennett saying he got what he asked for, and what those changes indicate. BT doesn’t seem to be willing to address that. My point is that those changes make it clear that HI bought itself some massive wiggle room. BT wants to argue about whether wiggle room exists at all, without addressing why those changes WERE made - changes she refuses to acknowledge or address.
So I’m asking the group - have I inadequately addressed the changes that were made, or is BT just ignoring what I addressed? And it might be best to answer the question vie private Freepmail so there’s not a public confrontation between BT and me, but communication that can be helpful to me so I know what would be most helpful. BT just doesn’t buy what I’m saying, which is not a crime. What I want to know is whether there is more that I can do to address objections that people like her might have.
Thanks!
Please don’t waste anymore of your time responding to me. I have explained, in detail, repeatedy, why your premise and logic are wrong.
You keep repeating that the items on the request form were not verified. They WERE verified and I’ve explained HOW they were verified.
I said earlier that if you can’t come to understand the law regarding item #1, there is no need for us to discuss your points #2 & #3.
It’s a holiday weekend. Enjoy it with your family. I will do the same. Let’s part ways amicably agreeing to disagree.