You are confusing a fact witness (who testifies to the truth of a matter based on firsthand knowledge) with certification by a custodian of records. The latter obviously does not have information about the truth of the data contained in records that date back 50, 75 years, etc. But the custodian can and does verify what those records indicate about particular matters. That is what Dr. Onaka has done.
Sec. 338-14.3 speaks of "verification of the existence of a certficate." It doesn't purport to require the custodian to add language about "validity." I have no idea where you are getting this notion that Onaka was supposed to make a statement about validity. If a document in contained in the vital records, absent something to suggest to the custodian the document's bona fides are to be questioned, his task is to state what those records indicate. Onaka did that.
And when you look at Bennett’s entire request - including the actual APPLICATION FORM - you realize that the BC they have CAN’T be valid because if it was, Onaka would have had to verify 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, since those are the facts requested to be verified
If the record weren't viewed as authentic or accurate, then Onaka couldn't have stated:
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
But state that he did. And he expressly verified the 10 items listed in SOS Bennet's letter. Again, how could Onaka verify these items if he didn't have a "valid" vital record stating such?
Your question seems to focus on information on the application form where Bennett wrote in"verification in lieu of certified copy." The obvious problem here is that Bennett wrote in items of information such as his name (Ken Bennett), his address, his phone number, his official status allowing him to make the request, etc. So when Bennett purports to request verification of "items in the attached form" are you suggesting Onaka was supposed to verify all items Bennett wrote on that form? That makes no sense.
Clearly, that form is designed to ask for information sufficient to identify the certificate for which a copy is requested. And Onaka verified the existence of a certificate. As to the information items you note, those were all contained on the White House LFBC, and Onaka verified that the information matched Hawaii's records.
So I fail to see any information requested by Bennett that wasn't effectively verified.
Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY fact submitted on the application form.
He verified such when he verified the information on the WH LFBC matched Hawaii's records.
Nor would he verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”
Since the White House image came from a copy printed onto security paper, and since the originals aren't on security paper, obviously Onaka couldn't give a verification as to "accurate image." The images necessarily are different.
But Onaka could and did verify as to the accuracy of the INFORMATION contained on the WH copy.
The INFORMATION on the White House image “matches” but is not identical.
Well, let's see if you have a point here.
Main Entry: identical
***
Definition: alike, equal
Synonyms: Xerox, carbon copy, corresponding, . . . double, duplicate, equivalent, exact, identic, indistinguishable, interchangeable, . . .look-alike, matching, . . . Source
So Kansas asks if they are "identical." Onaka says they "match." Given that "identical" and "matching" are synonymous terms Onaka verified the request.
Do you want the AL Supreme Court to say that’s a fine way of doing legal business here in the USA?
Whether imposing the duty on the Ala. SOS to undertake some sort of investigative process or hold some sort of administrative hearing is a good idea or not is a legislative, policy question. It's just not Alabama law as it existed at the time of the 2012 election. The SCOAL is not going to judicially impose that duty. Besides, Obama didn't win any electoral votes in AL. The appeal is pointless and moot.
Klayman will lose.
The problem is that the disclosure law in Hawaii says that registrar has to verify the facts “as stated by the applicant.” This means he can’t substitute other terms on an assumption some words are synonymous with others. In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact. And this is a fact that the state registrar has the authority to verify. It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record. There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy. Hawaii did NOT do this. They also failed to verify several specific facts contained on their own standard request form. The Kansas Secretary of State requested his own letter because the language in the Arizona and Mississippi letters were not compelling. He asked specifically if the copy was identical. Under the law in Hawaii, the registrar is supposed to verify that fact as stated by the applicant, not by using synonymous language or with a partial verification of facts. Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical. It may suggest that it might be identical, but it is NOT a verification that complies with the law “as stated by the applicant.”
Do you know the difference between prima facie evidence and non-prima facie? You’re acting like you don’t know the difference. When you look at the HI statutes, they are required to keep birth records that are prima facie and records that are NOT prima facie. Specifically, BC’s that are late and/or have major administrative amendments (as defined in great detail in the Administrative Rules) are NOT prima facie.
The difference is a critical one because if the record is prima facie the claims on it are legally presumed true. The legal burden is on whoever wants to say they are not true. For non-prima facie records the opposite is true. Because the document itself is suspect it is legally considered a rumor. For that record to have ANY evidentiary value for legal purposes those claims themselves have to be investigated and proven using other sources, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The burden of proof falls to the person who says that the claims on the record are true.
When Onaka gets an application for a request for a letter of verification, HRS 338-14.3 says he must verify the existence of a record AND anything else (about the vital event) that is submitted for verification, with the stipulation that he can only verify what can be certified as true - which for evidentiary purposes means whatever is legally presumed to be true.
So from the application form - which is the standard form - there are two things that have to be verified:
1. the existence of the record. Onaka verified this. He would have to verify this even if the record they have is a scrap of toilet paper with a note jotted on it. That scrap of TP could “indicate” a Honolulu birth, in which case Onaka could say that - as he did. All that is being verified is that they have a record for a person with more specific details than just a name that can be seen on the birth index list (for instance, a record for so-and-so who was born to so-and-so at such-and-such time). Verifying the existence of the record is a requirement regardless of the legal status of that record so this part of the verification says nothing about what is presumed to be true. That part is reserved for #2
2. Anything else that is submitted for verification, with the stipulation that they cannot verify anything unless it is submitted for verification by the requestor, and they can only verify those things if they are presumed to be true (are claimed on a prima facie record). #1 covers whether they’ve got a BC that claims what is submitted on the application. #2 covers what submitted facts are TRUE. This part would also cover any other requests such as the additional requests made by Bennett, Kobach, and MDEC.
Those requests could be for what is true, or could be for what is claimed on a record. In Bennett’s case, he said, “In addition to the items on the attached application, please verify FROM THE BIRTH RECORD....” He is asking for each item from the application form to be verified specifically, and he is asking for other items to be verified “from the birth record”. Onaka could take that 2 ways. If he interprets it as a request for the true facts on the application AND on the additional items submitted, then he would have to specifically verify every item that was submitted from the application form and from the additional list - if the record was valid. He doesn’t do that. He mentioned ONE thing from the application. And he only did that in #1, verifying the existence of a record which claims that. He never goes on to say that any of those submitted facts are TRUE.
Look at it again:
““[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
He is only verifying the existence of the record claiming a Honolulu birth. He does not verify that Obama WAS born in Honolulu.
From there he goes on to the process of verifying the additional information that was submitted. He separates this from part #1 by listing Obama’s name all over again, showing this is a new section.
Because Onaka listed Bennett’s addtional items “from the birth record” but didn’t list the items from the application form, he clearly interpreted those requests to mean 2 different things. The application form has to be interpreted as a request for verification of the TRUTH of the claims, since the verification of the existence of the record already showed that those are the claims on the record. Where Onaka HAD to understand the request being for verification of the truth of the claims he remained silent. He would not verify the truth of the claims.
He blows right past everything on the application form. Bennett knew Onaka didn’t verify the birth date; it’s not listed on there anywhere. Nor are his parents, etc. Bennett assumed that Onaka made a mistake, but the statute gives only one lawful reason for all 6 of the requested items from the application form to not be verified: if they cannot be certified as true. Nowhere did Onaka verify how the birth actually happened.
All other portions could be interpreted as requests to see what was “from the birth record” - that is, what is claimed on the birth record, without regard for the truth of the claims. And Onaka verifies that those claims are on the record he has. When verifying the dates of signatures and filing he does not use the format submitted by Bennett; he uses the exact way that the dates appear on the record, as if he is photocopying them.
However, he hits a snag when Bennett asks him to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. This is legal language for affirming the genuineness of the copy. In the Sunahara trial Deputy AG Jill Nagamine submitted the HDOH’s Administrative Rules with a certifying statement that the copy was a “true and correct copy of the original record on file”. This is standard language. In that case, the judge wouldn’t accept Nagamine’s submittal because even though her statement had the correct language, Nagamine is not the custodian of the record so she couldn’t certify it. The specific language matters. “True and accurate representation” means that the image accurately reflects what is in the actual record. He doesn’t verify that.
But he does something that the law does not allow him to do: he verifies something else - specifically, that the “information contained in the White House image MATCHES” the information contained in the record.
What does “matches” mean, legally? And what does “information” mean? Either of those words could mean anything so in effect they mean nothing. When asked point-blank by KS SOS Kobach whether the information (not the image, but the INFORMATION) is IDENTICAL, Onaka would not verify that.
If “information” means pixels, as some have claimed, and he couldn’t verify that the pixels were identical, then how could he claim that the pixels “matched”? If “information” doesn’t mean pixels but instead means the substance of the claim (as, for instance, 8-4-61 is the same CONTENT as Aug 4, 1961, and Onaka had no problem verifying Kobach’s submitted dates as being on the record even though their presentation was not identical - because the SUBSTANCE was identical), then why wouldn’t Onaka verify that the information/substance was “identical”?
I note that the eligibility issue is the only issue you have posted on here at Free Republic. You’re obviously interested in this. Did you read Klayman’s letter? What you’re voicing here is the standard boilerplate from Fogbow, not the language of a legal expert. A legal expert would know the difference between prima facie and not prima facie and would realize that the status makes all the difference as to whether a custodian of the record can certify the facts as TRUE. He doesn’t have to be an eyewitness if he has a prima facie record which makes the claims. Otherwise, nobody could ever certify anything. Were Antonio Villagairosa, Alice Travis Germond, and Nancy Pelosi present at Obama’s birth? OF course not. A lot of people have made assertions about Obama’s birth who could not have been a legal witness to it - including Obama himself. Legally speaking, what matters is whether there is a credible evidence trail by those who were there. A birth record is only invalidated if there are SERIOUS issues with the credibility of the evidence submitted. The State of Hawaii does not allow Onaka to certify that the claims made on Obama’s birth record are legally credible. HI statute says that a judicial or administrative official or body has to sort out those claims, which would be according to the FEderal Rules of Evidence. As it stands now, what we have is legally considered a rumor - which is very, very strange if Obama was indeed born at Kapiolani Hospital.