Hawaiian 'vital records' can be fraudulent amendments that anyone can submit to the state to Hawaii, which they have accepted at face value. Hawaii would accept the word of anyone who claimed to have knowledge about an Hawaiian birth to produce vital records. The "legalities" of the Bennett letter are BS legalese.
This is what Onaka signed.
"I certify that the information contained in the vital records [for Obama] on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event."
Onaka said nothing about that the "vital event" or "facts" are true or true copy or abstract.
The only thing that Onaka verified is that he has a record. Onaka has no confidence about what he signed is true.
“The only thing that Onaka verified is that he has a record. Onaka has no confidence about what he signed is true.”
__
Well, close. Onaka verified that he has a record and that the information in the LFBC matches the information in that official DoH record.
Unless Onaka was present at Obama’s birth, I can’t imagine how he would be able to testify to the truth of the information in the records. For that, he (and most of the rest of us) rely for guidance on Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says that if data exists in the official records of a state, full faith and credit shall be given to that information — in other words, we will start out believing it to be true, until and unless a compelling presentation of evidence to the contrary prevails. Onaka’s job is to issue documents that reflect the data in the official records He is in no position to have independent knowledge of the truthfulness of the data.
Of course, when you think about it, that’s also true of my birth certificate and yours and pretty much everybody else’s. Do you know anyone who has a birth certificate for which the certifying officer had personal knowledge that the facts in the document were true?