“Yeah yeah yeah. Her act of piety would be more convincing if she put those words on the document under the states seal instead of affirming that it is just an “abstract of the record.” Public pronouncements are not perjury.
The actions of the Hawaii DOH belie their words.”
The words that are on certified abstracts or copies of Hawai’ian birth records are: “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawai’i state Department of Health.—signed Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar.”
A short form Certification of Live Birth(COLB) from Hawai’i is an abstract. A long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is a copy.
When the Health Director mentions that “Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies,” that statement is what she is referring to and it is applied via a stamp.
“The words that are on certified abstracts or copies of Hawai’ian birth records are: “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawai’i state Department of Health.—signed Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar.”
A short form Certification of Live Birth(COLB) from Hawai’i is an abstract. A long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is a copy.”
Thank you. So, why does the “stamp” on the “document” released online by the WH state ““I certify this is a true copy or abstract of tXe record. . .”? And of course, by your own remarks, “A short form Certification of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawai’i is an abstract” but “A long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is a copy.” and yet the LFBC online image released indicates that is a true copy “or abstract”? WFTO?
I’ll take weak forgeries for $2.4 Trillion, Alex.
A short form Certification of Live Birth(COLB) from Hawai’i is an abstract. A long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is a copy.
When the Health Director mentions that “Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies,” that statement is what she is referring to and it is applied via a stamp.
In her public statement she says it is the Original. In her stamp she says it MIGHT be the original, or it MIGHT be a fake. The stamp is INTENTIONALLY ambiguous. What's more, the previously used stamp was absolutely certain. "TRUE and CORRECT COPY OF ORIGINAL." Hawaiian Bureaucrats could use that stamp if they wanted to. The fact that they choose not to says what their affirmations are worth.
One of the people who have been following these threads has just enlightened me about something called an "Apostille." Apparently the problem of people providing fake credentials has been something Europe has dealt with for years. (Due to their claims of Aristocracy and Inheritances etc. Where ACTUAL proof is demanded. )
If I understand this correctly, an "Apostille" is a standard of proof which goes straight to the heart of this matter. It requires original documents, and they MUST be certified as "Original" by the issuing Governmental agency. Language such as "This is an Original record OR it could be a Jelly Donut" isn't good enough.
The existence of this "Apostille" is legal precedent (albeit foreign) for this birth certificate issue. It puts the lie to all the lawyers arguments about weak or ambiguous proof being just as good as strong and specific proof. Not for the courts of Europe it is not.
Just thought you'd like to know.