from your post to me:
“That is explained in the “Wheel of Fortune v Family Feud” link.”
Ya lost me with that... WTF?
One of the links in the post was to a post I wrote, entitled “Wheel of Fortune v Family Feud”, at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf
That post explains how the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s request for verification differs from Bennett’s, and reveals how the MDEC request was fashioned specifically to accommodate Obama’s legally non-valid BC in Hawaii.
Does that help? There’s a lot of information but basically it comes down to the fact that Hawaii statute requires the registrar to verify whatever a qualified requestor submits, if the registrar can certify that it’s the way the birth really happened. If they have a legally-valid record, Hawaii vouches for the accuracy of the claims, and it’s up to the challenger to prove that the claims AREN’T true.
IOW, if there’s a legally valid record the “call on the field” from the State of Hawaii is that the claims are true. Those claims can be legally challenged by a review of the instant replay, but unless there is enough evidence to overturn the call on the field, that call stands.
Onaka would not verify any of the birth facts that Ken Bennett submitted. He confirmed that the facts submitted “matched” what they have on their record, so the only reason to not verify/certify them is if the record they have is not legally valid; Hawaii will not vouch for (certify) the truth of those claims because the record itself is legally suspicious (non-valid).
IOW, the call on the field is that the claims are NOT true. Anybody who wants to LAWFULLY/LEGALLY say that Obama WAS born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama has to show from the instant replay evidence enough to OVERTURN the call on the field.
Clear as mud?