Replies

It looks like you are quibbling with the language. If Onaka "verifies" a list of 12 items, specifying that a birth certificate exists with a certain name and place of birth and continuing to list 11 other items, many people would assume that Onaka was "verifying" that all of those items were on the birth certificate.

Of course, it could be a tricky ploy: some or all of those 11 items might not actually be on the birth certificate and Onaka's language might be a clever legal way of appearing to verify that they are without actually doing so.

But it could also be just his way of doing things. Understand that there would be one way of referring to items on the usual "short form" computer generated document and another way, less used today, of referring to items on the original certificate and any xerox or PDF produced from them.

Onaka's language may just reflect the awkward and unusual nature of the situation, rather than any intent to deceive. Any way to convey his meaning in language would probably come into question if you go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

Or there may be some legal or bureaucratic desire to cover himself from legal challenges without intent to defraud, which results in a clumsy phrasing. Or the truth may be somewhere in between, the information verified being correct, but something else concealed.

You could be right, but the chance that you are is less than they were years ago when this whole thing started. Enthusiasm for minute scrutiny of documents has declined over the years. For one thing, a lot of the comments about the document released being an "obvious forgery" just don't hold up.

People who didn't know anything about typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind, people who couldn't see how an image of a document bound in a book would be curved, people who couldn't even draw a straight line for Pete's sake, were claiming that they could easily see how the pdf was faked, and this has really hurt the credibility of the charges -- at least with me.

The following were requested to be verified and aren’t even MENTIONED on Onaka’s verification: male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.

The only lawful reason for them to be left off is if they cannot be verified. And yet Onaka verified that those are the claims made on the HDOH record.

So why were those things all left off?

The legal presumption of regularity is that a routine procedure complies with rules and protocols. In order to claim otherwise (to overcome the presumption of regularity) you have to have evidence to the contrary.

So what evidence is there? The 1960-64 birth index? That has been proven to be altered to include legally non-valid records. The birth announcements? Those have been proven to have been tampered with. Fukino’s statements? She never claimed that the record she saw was legally valid.

What evidence is there that Onaka didn’t do exactly what he certified (swore to) in this verification: comply fully with HRS 338-14.3?

Right, it's supposed to "look like" he's "verifying" all the items on the PDF of the long-form, but then he finishes with the "additionally" statement, claiming the information on the PDF "matches" the original record on file. Why would that be additional to what was in the list?? Why list out the 12 items minus the other three or four, and then add that statement?? And why does it NOT say the PDF is a true copy??

Of course, it could be a tricky ploy: some or all of those 11 items might not actually be on the birth certificate and Onaka's language might be a clever legal way of appearing to verify that they are without actually doing so.

But it could also be just his way of doing things. Understand that there would be one way of referring to items on the usual "short form" computer generated document and another way, less used today, of referring to items on the original certificate and any xerox or PDF produced from them.

This isn't a very good explanation because the short form is supposed to be derived from the long-form and second, the list of 12 items includes several things that are NOT on the short form, three, SOS Bennett never requested a verification of the short-form, and four, the short-form has an official name: "Certification of Live Birth." Onaka does not use this term in the letter of verification. He does use other discrete and separate terms: birth certificate, Certificate of Live Birth, and "original record in our files." Let's remember that former DOH director Chiyome Fukino referenced multiple records in one of the news releases that was supposed to confirm the authenticity of Obama's COLB. And also remember that she said his long-form was half-handwritten. Obama's PDF is obviously NOT half-handwritten. There may be all kinds of different documents on file ... some are "original" but this doesn't mean they were created in 1961.

Onaka's language may just reflect the awkward and unusual nature of the situation, rather than any intent to deceive. Any way to convey his meaning in language would probably come into question if you go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

No, the DOH stalled for two months before responding to Bennett's request AND they insisted that he filed his request in a specific way. Second, this doesn't explain why Onaka ignored the items that are on the DOH's standard birth-record request form.

Or there may be some legal or bureaucratic desire to cover himself from legal challenges without intent to defraud, which results in a clumsy phrasing. Or the truth may be somewhere in between, the information verified being correct, but something else concealed.

This is part of the reason I mentioned the adoption rules that are referenced on the DOH's Obama webpage. There may be things that are being concealed by law ... but there IS an intent to defraud because the DOH knows this information is being used in regards to Obama's eligibility. What is concealed has an impact on Obama's nationality and eligibility. There's a reasonable public interest in providing full disclosure of Obama's records in spite of any contrary state laws.

You could be right, but the chance that you are is less than they were years ago when this whole thing started. Enthusiasm for minute scrutiny of documents has declined over the years. For one thing, a lot of the comments about the document released being an "obvious forgery" just don't hold up.

People who didn't know anything about typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind, people who couldn't see how an image of a document bound in a book would be curved, people who couldn't even draw a straight line for Pete's sake, were claiming that they could easily see how the pdf was faked, and this has really hurt the credibility of the charges -- at least with me.

I'm not addressing the issues of forgery here, just what the letter of verification tells us and more importantly, what it purposely refused to verify. I think it's silly to presume to know what anyone else knows about "typewriters or fountain pens and the marks they leave behind." There are plenty of obvious red flags in Obama's PDF and it doesn't take any special expertise to recognize that.