“But any judge worth his salt should know that Onaka did not verify that any of that information is claimed on a legally-valid record.”
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this, it seems. IMO, you are speculating based on inferences and your personal interpretation of HI statutes. I doubt that any judge in the US, state or federal, would fail to honor the Onaka “Verification.”
The seal and signature stamp make the verification prima facie “self-authenticating” meaning that a separate evidentiary hearing would need to be held to challenge it, IIRC.
No credible evidence (evidence, not speculation or inference) that Onaka’s verification was forged or that it was NOT a verification, as claimed on the face of the document, has been presented to any court by a competent attorney representing a plaintiff with standing.
Nothing Onaka said in Tepper’s verification is relevant to the issue of whether there is a legally valid BC at the HDOH. What Onaka said could apply equally well to a non-valid HDOH record as to a valid one.
In the Duncan Sunahara case the judge initially was hesitant to accept the Administrative Rules presented by Deputy AG Jill Nagamine because she did not have a certified statement from the custodian of the Administrative Rules, saying that the copy she gave the judge was a “true and correct copy of the original record”. Nagamine argued that her word should be trusted as an officer of the court; the judge wouldn’t accept that either. Ended up saying she would make an exception and accept it because it bore the certifying statement from when the rules were accepted. She was looking for very precise legal language and the absence of that legal language is a big problem. What do you think that judge would have done if either Nagamine or the certifying statement in the Administrative Rules had simply said, “The information contained in these rules matches the information contained in what is actually approved and enacted”?