Beside the verification to SoS Bennett (linked by Nero)there are two other verifications.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/wp-content/uploads/verification.jpg
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf
In both of those Dr. Onaka verifies the information on the pdf matches the information on the original.
These are the only Hawaii verifications that have been posted to the net. So we have no idea what’s the standard format for a verification.
The form that SoS Bennett sent to Hawaii is the standard form used to request a birth certificate. The items on the form are normally used by the DOH to locate the correct BC to be verified.
1) On a normal verification (not Obama’s) would Dr. Onaka list all the items on the request form?
2) Or would he simple say “I verify we have the original vital record for so and so on file at the DOH indicating birth in Hawaii.”?
3) Are the request form’s items implicitly verified by the fact that they used those items to identify the one correct BC containing that info?
On Bennet’s rquest form, he entered the following info:
Name: Barack Hussein Obama, II
Gender: Male
DOB: August 4, 1961
Place of Birth: Honolulu, Oahu
Father’s: Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mother’s Maiden Name: Stanley Ann Dunham
He also requested the following information be verified:
Department of Health File: 151 61 10641
Time of Birth: 7:24 p.m.
Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
Age of Father: 25
Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
Age of Mother: 18
Birthplace of Mother: Wichita, Kansas
Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
Date accepted by local registrar: August-8-1961
Butter’s contention is that those last items are only a verification that the original BC claims these items. But couldn’t you use the same argument even if all the items (request form and extra items) had been listed on Dr. Onaka’s verification?
And wouldn’t that hold true for every verification issued by Hawaii?
How would you very know whether or not there was a big red “ALTERED” stamped on a particular BC by just looking at a verification?
Could there be legal reasons that Dr. Onaka cannot use the magic word “identical” and those reasons have nothing to do with the legal validity of the BC? For example, the coping and scanning process and the creating of the pdf all cause image distortions would they still be legally identical?
If in coping the original onto the green security paper was the image reduced to fit on the paper? If so would it still be “identical”?
On SoS Bennet’s verification, Dr. Onaka did not list the items on the request form, but he did verify that those items are on the original BC held by the DOH.
“Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.”
Does that mean that he is verifing that all of the items on the request form match the information on the original BC?
“Matching” is totally irrelevant for legal purposes. The “information” on my $3 bill would match the “information” on anybody else’s, but none of them would have any legal value. “Matching” what’s on a legally non-valid record means nothing.
The application is used to find the correct record, but Bennett clearly asked that the information in that application be verified. Onaka did not verify that information. To verify it, you have to say it. If you don’t say it, you don’t verify it.
We would know there was no “LATE” or “ALTERED” stamp on the record if Onaka said, “I, Alvin Onaka, verify that the Hawaii DOH has a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama, II. I verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father BArack Hussein Obama.”
Or he could say, “I, Alvin Onaka verify that the HI DOH has a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama, II and verify that the following are his true facts of birth: Gender: male DOB: Aug 4, 1961 (etc)...”
The point of it is what exactly he says he is verifying. Nowhere does he say he’s verifying anything as true. And he doesn’t even mention the core pieces of information, which were all on the actual application.
“Information” is the CONTENT, not the presentation of it. Take the dates that Bennett requested to be verified “from the birth record”. He requested them in a certain format, but Onaka responded with the date in the format EXACTLY AS IT IS ON THE WHITE HOUSE IMAGE. He could still verify that the INFORMATION Bennett gave was what was actually on the BC because the format is irrelevant. No matter how you format the date it is still the same physical day, and that is the INFORMATION.
Onaka would not verify that the INFORMATION contained in the White House image is identical to the INFORMATION contained in the HDOH record. This isn’t talking about syntax or appearances (such as copying irregularities); it’s talking about the content. The content is not identical.
