[butterdezillion]

How do you know what Onaka understood about his role?

What I’ve stated is what is in Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3, which can be seen at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm and which says (keep in mind that the word “shall” means it is obligatory; there is no discretion):

§338-14.3 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) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.

(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.

(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]

[x]

It looks like that's what he did. He gave a general or overall verification that the certificate existed and the copy contained the same information and then verified certain points that he was specifically asked to check.

He wasn't obligated to do anything more or other than that. In law and politics and bureaucracy, people don't do favors for those who are assumed to be "on the other side." Unless there's a court order, which I don't think there was, they do the absolute minimum required by law. That's the standard procedure, and I don't think you can conclude anything from that.

Also, as some of the commenters on other sites have noted, there are real problems with attesting that a document and a copy are "identical." Two pieces of paper (or a piece of paper and a computer graphic) aren't literally the same thing. You can verify the information, but going further than that is problematic and not required by the law.