I'm going to stop you here, because this is basically what Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. appeared to be doing in the last part of the letter of verification to AZ SOS Bennett when Onaka wrote that the "information matches." But Bennett didn't even make such a request. He did request verification of the information in the standard request form and Onaka punted on that.
It looks like Onaka read the items on the form as identifiers specifying which document he was supposed to check, not as items to be checked. That could be the usual way such forms are treated.
The laws and procedures that butter quoted make it pretty clear that the registrar is supposed to verify ALL information that is specifically requested. I don't get the feeling that there is a "usual way" such forms are treated, because the state of Hawaii stalled forever with Bennett's request while they responded immediately to the MDEC.
Bennett thought he was going to get a specific verification of all the items on the form and the items on the sheet. He didn't get that. Whether this was some special dodge on Onaka's part or whether it was standard operation procedure for Hawaii DOH is something you could find out if you had other copies of requests for verification and their answers. Barring that, I don't think you can assume that it's a clever dodge.
Bennett was instructed by the state of Hawaii on how to request the information. I'm pretty sure he had a reasonable expectation that all the information he requested would be specifically verified since he was told exactly what to do. As far as a "clever dodge," I don't believe that's how I characterized Onaka's evasion of the missing verifications.
Once for the short form. Once for the long form. Once in this letter. Maybe Onaka was lying all those times, but it looks to me like he attested to the validity of the information 3 times.
He wasn't asked about the short form, at least not in terms of providing any official verification. At one point, the spokesbabe for the DOH reported that Onaka THOUGHT he could see "pieces" of an embossed seal on the jpg of the short form. That's not how a registrar attests to the validity of the information in a legally valid birth certificate. We really don't need to make excuses for him. This is clearly an insufficent verification. It's why the KS SOS felt like he needed to try to get a verification in which the registrar would confirm whether the information was "identical." Onaka PUNTED on that request too.
I never said it was a fraud, or an obvious fraud -- or authentic. I don't know enough about documents and imaging to decide. Nothing looks obviously fraudulent to me, but what do I know?
You said: "Could be, and if that's true, the matter should be examined more closely. Fukino may have known what she was talking about and might actually have seen a document different from the one that was presented (in PDF copy) to the public." By admitting there's sufficient reason to examine the document more closely and that there may be different documents, then you are admitting there are obvious signs of fraud that have been brought up. You're trying to deflect from these red flags by talking about fountain pens and manual typewriters. Sorry, but whining about that when you've acknowledged the other problems is pointless.
I'm learning (I hope) as I go. So far as I know, you can get an overall verification of the information on document by submitting the form. Then, if you have specific information about what's on the form you can submit that information separately and get confirmation that it is or isn't correct. The information on the form is for identification of the document. And it's "verified" in the overall verification of the document.
If you have examples of other forms submitted and verifications returned you can see whether you get all the fields on your form verified separately. If it turns out that in other cases you do get such a verification of every item on the form as well as of other items submitted separately, then we can discuss why Onaka departed from procedure in this case, but if not, all the chatter is pointless.
By admitting there's sufficient reason to examine the document more closely and that there may be different documents, then you are admitting there are obvious signs of fraud that have been brought up.
Nonsense. I never said there were obvious signs of fraud in the document. Fukino's story may be true or not. It hardly qualifies as an obvious sign of fraud.
I'm skeptical about whether she saw what she said she saw, but was extending you an olive branch by admitting that her statement was better evidence than most of what you have -- that there just might possibly be something in it, in contrast to all the other dead ends. Maybe it's time to take that olive branch back.
You're trying to deflect from these red flags by talking about fountain pens and manual typewriters. Sorry, but whining about that when you've acknowledged the other problems is pointless.
What whining? I'm crowing. It's not "whining" if you win. I was right about those things and at least some of you guys were horribly, stupidly, abysmally, moronically wrong. I don't like to brag and I wasn't actually crowing when I wrote it, but it seems appropriate in this case.