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?
I'm not an expert on this. From what I can find online we have a copy of a page of Bennett's request and a copy of a page of Onaka's reply, and they line up pretty well.
What was asked is answered. Apparently there may have been another page in the request. Do you have an image of that or of any other page in the reply?
It looks like Onaka gave a blanket verification of the information on the copy to an overall request for verification and then only gave precise answers to the items Bennett specifically asked him about. So blame Bennett for not asking the right questions or enough questions.
There's a certain amount of bureaucratic comedy here. Bennett was only authorized to asked and Onaka only authorized to answer certain questions, so what they say isn't going to match up with more general birther concerns.