You’re not digesting what I have said.
In his original request Bennett asked for 3 things - and I clearly said this in the PDF so why am I even repeating it here?
1. From the submitted form: Verification that they have a legally valid BC for Barack Hussein Obama II, and that he was born in Honolulu, HI on Aug 4, 1961 to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and father Barack Hussein Obama... (asking for verification that C (this particular claim) is legally valid/true - a “verification in lieu of a certified copy”)
2. From the special request: Verification that the record they have on file has those 10 (or however many) items he specifically listed. (Verification of what is on B)
3. From the special request: Verification that the BC Obama posted publicly is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. (verification that A=B)
The only one of those that is a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” is #1. They never did #1. You keep arguing that #3 is the same as #1. It’s not, because they have never said that EITHER A or B is legally valid. They could be the same and both be as false as the day is long. Even if they HAD said that A was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” it STILL wouldn’t verify that either A or B was legally valid/true - but they wouldn’t even go THAT far. So they never did #1.
They did #2, which was just to verify what is on B (the record on file - AGAIN, no verification of whether what’s in the file is legally valid/true).
They never did #3. They verified that the INFORMATION on A matches B. That doesn’t mean that everything on B is also on A, and it doesn’t mean that A is in the same form as B. (As I’ve mentioned, this leaves open the distinct possibility/probability that B has content on it that A doesn’t have - such as LATE and ALTERED stamps and notations of affidavits to support the late and amended filing. And their refusal to answer Bennett’s request as originally asked suggests that they NEEDED to keep that possibility open).
So of Bennett’s original request, only #2 got done. Yet Bennett says he got what he asked for. That means in his final “re-worded” request he never asked for #1 and #3. Based on what Bennett himself said, that has to be the conclusion. That’s logic 101.
Like a proof. Let’s make this a 6th-grade logic question:
1. Bennett originally asked for #1, #2, and #3.
2. Bennett said he had to “re-word” his request.
3. Bennett got #2.
4. Bennett said he got what he asked for.
THEREFORE...... what did Bennett ask for, and how was that different from his original request?
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am not digesting what you said. I understand fully what you have said. Your whole premise is faulty and therefore so is your resulting "6th grade logic." (Your words, not mine.)
The only one of those that is a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” is #1.
That is absolutely factually incorrect. HRS 338-14.3 stipulates that the "Verification in lieu of a certified copy" has TWO parts: (1) the verification of the existence of a certificate AND (2) verification of any other information the applicant supplies.
338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.They never did #1.
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
Yes, they most certainly did. Onaka's statement ...
I verify the following:... satisfies the FIRST part of the TWO-part verification. He confirmed the existence of a certificate.1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
There is NO NEED for Onaka to individually list the items submitted on the request form (e.g. date and time of birth, parents' names, gender, etc.) in that statement because section (b) of HRS 338-14.3 stipulates that the facts of the event are AS STATED by the applicant. If the facts were not accepted by Onaka "as stated by the applicant" on the request form, Onaka could not provide a verification that the requested certificate exists, much less verify the 10 specific items requested.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.If you cannot agree with the above, there is no reason for me to address the remainder of your points. We have to come to an understanding of the law regarding item #1 (the request form) before we can move forward.
I'm going to bed. G'night, butter. I'll check this thread in the morning.