Amended BC’s have certificate numbers but the BC’s themselves are not legally valid, e.g. they do not qualify to be prima facie evidence. The State of Hawaii does not “verify” the accuracy of amended BC’s. That’s why HRS 338-17 says amended BC’s require a special procedure before amended BC’s can have any legal value.
It should be noted, however, that Fukino never said that Obama has a certificate number or that his birth certificate is legally valid.
How would you describe an amended BC that was legally invalid but had sworn statements saying that somebody was born in Hawaii? If you said, “I have seen the original vital records which verify that this person was born in Hawaii”, would that be a legally accurate statement? Would that mean that YOU verify a Hawaii birth, or would it mean that the records verify a Hawaii birth - whether or not the records themselves legally valid?
The record may verify a “fact” (swear it’s true), but even if an amended BC has a sworn statement, the State does not grant that BC prima facie status. That’s what HRS 338-17 says. The claim is sworn, but the State of Hawaii does NOT verify that the claim is “on its face” evidence of the truth of the claim.
See there are two levels of verification - there is the applicant’s verification of a claim (”I swear it’s true, officer”) and then there is the verification by the government entity (”I hereby find you guilty of murder...”)
If a defendant “verifies” that they are innocent it’s a totally different thing than if the judge or jury signs a document declaring that a defendant is innocent. The defendant’s “verification” is a claim whose accuracy has to be determined. The verdict is the government’s determination of whether the claim is accurate.
The documents “verify” Obama’s Hawaii birth just like OJ Simpson’s affidavits and sworn testimony “verified” his whereabouts and involvement in his wife’s murder. He swore that he told the truth. The LEGAL STATUS of the claim depended on what the judge and/or jury verified as true.
Fukino has never, ever said that the State of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth facts. She has never once been willing to either say or show the LEGAL STATUS of Obama’s birth certificate at all - even though required by law to do so to ANYBODY WHO ASKS TO SEE A NON-CERTIFIED ABBREVIATED BC.
I made requests to see Obama’s records stored in the late birth index, Hawaiian Birth Certificate index, no records index, and pending index - all of which are real indices that they look in when they try to find a person’s BC to fulfill that person’s request, according to the “For Office Use Only” portion of the request form. I received back a Glomarized response - IOW they are claiming that the legal status is a PROTECTED DISCLOSURE. They don’t have to - and won’t - reveal the legal status of the birth certificate. So when they claim they have a birth certificate for Obama they refuse to say whether that is a pending, late, COHB, or legally valid BC. They’re claiming the legal status of the BC - whether the State of Hawaii has verified the truthfulness of the BC claims - is a SECRET.
Why is that? And if they have to say the same thing for a piece of toilet paper with a name scratched on it that’s in a “pending file” somewhere as they would say for a legally-valid BC, then why should we believe their statement of having a BC or that Obama is in the index data means anything more than a piece of toilet paper with his name scratched on it?
When did Okubo say there were no amended records in the birth index for Obama? If she truly said that then she is contradicting her own Glomarized responses to me, in which she said she COULDN’T REVEAL THAT.
To most normal people, Dr. Fukino’s July 27th media release was a definitive statement but there will always be those who will try to parse her words. That goes with the territory of being involved in a controversial issue.
If we were in the 4th grade, the key words are VERIFYING, BORN IN HAWAII and NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
She meant exactly what she said: that she had seen the original vital records (plural) which claim on oath that Obama was born in Hawaii.
She didn’t mean what she DIDN’T say: that she had seen the original vital records AND verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What she said is what the records claim. What she didn’t say is what she (or the State of Hawaii) claims - because HRS 338-17 doesn’t allow them to claim anything for an amended BC.
And don’t you dare call this “parsing words” because I went through big hassles with a long, drawn-out series of communications through which the HDOH claimed that the legal status of a birth certificate has to be kept secret. IOW, they CAN’T SAY WHETHER THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THEY HAVE FOR SOMEBODY IS A PIECE OF LEGAL DOO-DOO OR ACTUALLY LEGALLY VALID. They can’t (themselves) verify the accuracy of what is on a BC because that would indicate the legal status, and that has to be kept secret.
Does it make sense with anything? Heck no. Nothing they say makes sense with anything else they say or with the laws. It’s all just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
So this isn’t legal parsing; it is taking the HDOH at their own word. They SAY they can’t verify the legal status of a BC, so that obviously can’t be what Fukino did in her statement. Unless you consider the HDOH responses to me to be lies or mistaken - in which case, why believe anything they say?