If it was prima facie evidence then why wouldn’t Onaka say that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama? Why would he not verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”?
Ken Bennett said Onaka didn’t verify the birthdate because he made a mistake, but Onaka’s own certifying statement says that his answer was pursuant to HRS 338-14.3 (which says he must provide a verification upon request, provided that verifying something is certification that it is the way that the birth really happened.) Bennett assumed that Onaka’s verification was NOT accurate, because the verification failed to verify the birth date (and gender, and island of birth, and mother’s name, and father’s name, and city of birth.... in fact, it failed to verify every fact submitted on the application form, which CANNOT be interpreted to simply be asking for verification that the claims are found on a (possibly non-valid) birth certificate.
But Onaka did verify the birth in Hawaii of a child named Barack Hussein Obama 11, didn’t he?
(Whose name appears on the Birth Index)
And that child could have had a different birthdate, a different mother, and might have been born at Wahiawa Hospital, which was included in the geographical region for which Verna Lee was the Local Registrar...?
Can’t say which network it was as I wasn’t watching but I heard from the other room the evening news anchor a few minutes ago stating the BC issue had been cleared up in 2008 when he showed the long form and his original bc, sigh...