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”?
“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.”
That is your personal conjecture based on your own interpretation of HI statutes...which no judge inside or outside of HI will accept, IMO.
Yes, there are “tells” all over the place that the WH LFBC pdf is NOT a true and correct copy of an HI 1961 vital record, but that won’t prevail against the legal firewalls erected by Barry’s legal minions in HI.