If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?
See, no matter what argument you try to make, Onaka’s own inconsistencies will bite you in the butt. The only explanation that explains it all is that Onaka verified only that the specifically-mentioned birth facts are “from the birth certificate” (as Bennett specifically worded his request ON THE PAGE BESIDES THE APPLICATION) - that is, that they are what is contained on the legally non-valid record (which is why he cannot verify anything from the actual application form).
Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka can’t interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. There’s no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things. He only snuck in Honolulu by saying that the birth record they have “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
Do not forget that the word he is willing to use is “matches”. He is not willing to use the words “is identical to”; he will not verify that, even though he has to verify it if he can. Matches makes no difference if the record is non-valid, and if it meant the same thing as “identical” he would have verified what Kobach actually submitted for verification: that the information contained in the WH image is “identical to” the information contained in the genuine record. He also wouldn’t verify that the WH image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.
If what you think he’s saying is what he was really saying, he would have just verified exactly what he was asked. He refused, and that gives it away that what he said is NOT that the WH image is genuine and identical to the original.
“If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?”
We don’t know what Dr. Onaka was thinking. Maybe he thought he was just being thorough by adding the statement about being born in “Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Hawaii code says “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.”
The problem as I see it is that we have three unique verifications that were based on three unique requests. We don’t know what standard format for a verfication is. I would guess that if I asked for a verification of a birth and if all of the items on my request form matched the original BC, I would not get an item by item verification but only a simply “I verify the existence of the original record” or words to that effect. Implict in that is that the items on the request form are “as stated by the applicant.”
But if I enter wrong information in the request form (such as Kauai instead of Oahu), then maybe I would receive an item by item verification with the wrong items not being verified.
Who knows.
“Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka can’t interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. There’s no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things.”
I’m not following your logic here. According to Bennett’s e-mail to Dr. Onaka,
“Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:”
Bennett specifically asks Dr. Onaka to “verify the following items from the record of birth”. So if Dr.Onaka cannot verify the request form items, how can he verify the additional items that come from the same record of birth?
Are you saying that Bennett’s request form says Oahu but the original birth record says something else?