Yes, he did. He was asked to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. He did not verify those things. The only reason the statute allows for him to not verify a fact on request from a qualified requestor is if he cannot certify that the event actually happened that way. He did verify that those are the facts that are claimed on the record they have, so the only reason left for him to not certify that the event actually happened as claimed is if the record they have is not legally valid/probative.
In the same way, he was asked to verify that the long-form that was posted to the White House website was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” The only legal reason to not verify that is if it CAN’T be verified, because it’s not true. Onaka said some other things to make it easy for people to get distracted (”the information contained in the record matches the original record”), but the law required him to say that the copy was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” if that is actually true. And he didn’t.
The presumption of regularity means that unless there is evidence to the contrary, it has to legally be presumed that routine requests were handled in the prescribed way and conform to the requirements of the law. IOW, since Onaka didn’t verify what was requested by a qualified requestor, we have to presume it was for the only lawful reason: because he COULDN’T verify those things.
He can say whatever he wants to in order to deflect the question and distract from his final answer, but the final answer is that he did not verify any of those facts and he did not verify the copy as a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. And the legal presumption is that his response was lawful; he didn’t verify because he COULDN’T, which is the only lawful reason for him to not verify those things.
The stuff he put on the letter of verification is all smokescreen. It’s what he DIDN’T say and the only legal reason for him to not say them that reveals all.
Three different lawyers have looked at the laws, the documents, and my legal reasoning and concur.
In addition to that - and this was my first clue that I had this right - the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee understood this verification the same way, because when they requested a verification after observing Onaka’s response to Bennett, they were very careful not to ask for any actual birth facts to be verified. They knew Onaka could not and would not verify any facts as true, because the record is not legally valid. But knew that he WOULD verify that the claims on the White House forgery match the information that is on their non-valid record. So that’s all they asked Onaka to verify - that the particular claims on the posted long-form are also on Hawaii’s (non-valid) record.
So even the Mississippi Democratic Party’s lawyers understood Onaka’s verification to Bennett the same way as the 3 lawyers I consulted, who agreed with my understanding of the law.
Onaka’s failure to verify any actual BIRTH FACTS (even though those are the claims on the record they have) confirms that the record they have is legally non-valid. And Onaka’s failure to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” is confirmation that it is NOT a true and accurate representation of the original record on file. IOW, it is a forgery - made to appear valid when the real record has stamps on it showing it to be legally non-valid.
Why do you think that wasn’t reported in any of the places you looked?
Have a nice day sir.
The stone wall has been reached. In re the BC, It is now of course painfully obvious now that what BHO's attorney got from the HIDOH is not what he released on the WH website.
By sending an attorney to pick up the files, Team Obama does have some small claim to "attorney client privilege" in preventing the Hawaiians from releasing whatever it is they did give him ... so unless this gets to a court of some sort, we shall not be allowed to compare the two sets of data.
I am glad Mitt ain't asking my advice on this ... it is a red-hot "race-potato!" Could help him. Could hurt him. The real question: "Is this issue alive ... or dead?" At this point we are not going to know until after the election ...
If the wrong guy wins, we'll never know!