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?
Just a follow-up to that post.
Onaka verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record on file. That includes, for instance, date of birth.
But they never verified that the original record is legally valid. So they never verified that Aug 4, 1961 is the legally-valid date of birth for Obama. That’s precisely my point. All they would verify is that the record CLAIMS that.
This whole verification is that they have a record and that the record claims the same things as were on Obama’s posted long-form.
But the fact that they went through all these gyrations - and ultimately wouldn’t release a thing to Bennett until he allowed them to get away with these gyrations - in order to specifically NOT have to say that any of those facts are true, legally-probative claim, speaks for itself.
You can say, “Well, we know that they are verifying the truth - legal validity - of an Aug 4, 1961 birth because they said that what’s on the posted long-form (an Aug 4, 1961 birth) matches what they have on their record.” But that requires one other given, according to logic and geometric-type proofs: It requires that their record be legally valid.
Sort of like this:
If A(posted BC) = B (BC on file) and B is legally valid, then A=legally valid.
But Onaka never said that B is legally valid. So the logic you’re presenting amounts to: If A=B then A is legally valid. Doesn’t work.
And it’s especially suspicious that they would only say A=B, when what they were legally required to answer from the submitted verification form was whether C (just a fact, like born on Aug 4, 1961 - regardless of whether it is on A or B) is legally valid.
They refused to do that. And I’m asking you why. Saying that A=B is very, very different than saying C is legally valid. Why did they opt for “A=B” rather than “C is valid”?