That's incorrect. Onaka certified that the 12 specific items he listed were obtained DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL vital record on file at the HDoH.
Onaka, elsewhere in his email to Bennett, said, “I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original in our file.” Original what? Internet image? Or vital record?
Original vital record.
Onaka’s slippery language is a contrivance.
Slippery language? Contrivance?
The only contrivance I see is that of those who refuse to accept the very clear proof that Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate on file and that the data contained on the LFBC released by the WH matches the data on said original vital record.
Those who continue to parse statements from Hawaii are, IMO, attempting to make those statements fit their preconceived conclusions rather than facing the truth.
The vital records where used to verify the facts of the vital event. That is what has been certified.
Onaka's statment has the appearance of certifying the facts, but it does not "certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the original on file"
Yes, that is slippery language. If you don't like it, take it up with those who uttered it.
No more documents certifying the existence of other documents. Arizona has Constitutional power. I'd like to see them use it.
-PJ
“Those who continue to parse statements from Hawaii...”
Liars can’t blame doubters.
Liars:
there is a notation
it is half typed half written
COLB is all there is, there is no LFBC
LFBC produced
challenging the authority of AZ SOS
People who utter statements of, shall we say “dubious veracity”, and who have a general “mis-demeanor” qualify as liars, IMO. When a liar’s word is doubted no one should complain.
Where did he say “original”? For that matter where did he say “legally valid”? Where did he ever say “true facts”?
Why wouldn’t they verify that Obama’s posted long-form is a “true and accurate representation of the record on file”?
Earlier on, you had tried to say that the “re-wording” had to do with whether or not Bennett was eligible to receive the information he requested. Now we find out that HI apparently agrees that Bennett is eligible to receive a verification - but what they responded to was NOT what he requested. And in fact the portion of his request that is STANDARD was actually not responded to.
When they verify they have to verify SPECIFICS ITEMS. A generic statement that the information contained on a document matches what they have is not how they are supposed to verify anything. If they are going to verify his date of birth, they have to be given a date of birth and they have to say whether that is the true date of birth for that person, according to their records - unless the request is modified somehow, to ask them to verify something else. And that’s what Bennett’s special-worded request was: it was a request to verify that those particular items are WHAT WAS ON THE RECORD - not that those particular claims are LEGALLY TRUE.
The fact of the matter is that Bennett submitted a request to specifically verify that Aug 4, 1961 is the factual, legally-probative date of birth for Obama, and HI never verified that.
Again I ask you: Why not? By giving any verification at all they acknowledged that Bennett was eligible to receive that particular verification as well. Why would they not give him that?