Just for the record: Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (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.
(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.
(c)...(d)...(e)...(deleted)
What Onaka did was verify the existence of the certificate and the substance of the certificate (birth date, subject, etc). He did not verify all of the facts that he was asked to verify. I am not a lawyer so I don't know what you are asking or why you are asking me. Why don't you rephrase your question? In any case he was asked by persons with a legal interest in the record and he gave a partial answer. There's no reason to doubt the facts that he did provide. He did not verify all the requested information. I do not know the legal significance of his failure to verify all the facts.
You said: “What Onaka did was verify the existence of the certificate and the substance of the certificate (birth date, subject, etc).”
Where did he verify the substance of the birth certificate - for instance, the birth date? He verified the existence of a record which claims a Honolulu birth. The critical facts are gender, DOB, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name. Where did Onaka ever say what any of those true facts are?
The actual Letter of Verification:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf