Replies

No, you’ve got it wrong and you’re subjecting us to a red herring.

The State of Hawaii says which records are considered prima facia evidence, and late and/or altered (having major administrative amendments, not typos or bloopers) are NOT prima facie evidence. If a claim is made on a prima facie document the registrar legally presumes it to be true, according to evidentiary standards. But Hawaii statute says that the probative/evidentiary value of a late and/or altered BC must be determined in the administrative or judicial setting in which it is presented as evidence - NOT by the registrar. The State of Hawaii can make no legal presumptions about the truth of the claims on those records. If asked to verify those claims they would not be able to. All they could verify is that a record exists. They could verify that the claims are found on their record. They could NOT verify that any of those claims are legally presumed to be true. And that is exactly how Onaka handled the verification requests.

(This is also why a worker in his office privately told a caller that they would never issue a verification for Obama and that was why they had to stonewall EVERYBODY’s requests for verifications - so there would be no questions asked as to why they wouldn’t issue a verification for Obama. This is also why Janice Okubo gave a legally-binding response to my UIPA request by saying that there aren’t any forms for a letter of verification because they don’t issue them any more. The reason they don’t issue them any more is because of what the other office worker said: if they issued verifications for anybody it would raise questions as to why they would never issue a verification of facts for Obama. Onaka, his office worker, Janice Okubo, the months-long delay by Deputy AG Jill Nagamine regarding Bennett’s request... it is all consistent. They were all 4 adamant that HI was NOT going to issue verifications.)

THAT is why Onaka would not verify anything - and why he made sure his signature was accompanied by initials and why he wouldn’t put his own raised seal to authenticate his signature and certification. In effect, he had his fingers crossed behind his back just to make sure he couldn’t be held legally accountable if somebody interpreted this letter as actually verifying the TRUTH of any of the submitted claims.

When a record is prima facia evidence it is legally presumed to be true, unless there is evidence to overcome that presumption. Obama’s BC is NOT prima facia evidence. If it was, Onaka would have had to verify each of the things Bennett specifically asked him to verify.

As it stands it is OBAMA who has the legal burden of proof if he wants to use his non-valid HI BC as proof of his birth facts. The hard thing for him will be explaining how he could use a valid BC from somewhere else his whole life long and now claim that the HI BC is accurate and the BC he was using before was wrong all along. He can’t have it both ways. Either he was using a fake BC his whole life long, or he’s using one now. Either way, he’s a crook and so are all the people who are covering for him.

And actually, Full Faith and Credit is only codified as applying to judicial decisions and legislative actions, not to individual records such as vital records. One state or territory can refuse to accept the vital records of another. The feds sure do. I think it’s the feds who won’t accept Puerto Rican BC’s because of the proven fraud, and there’s also at least one county in one of the states whose BC’s the feds won’t accept because of the documented fraud there. To be honest, after what I’ve seen from the HDOH, I’m not sure ANY state should be accepting the vital records of Hawaii, and that may be a big part of why they don’t want to show the microfilms to anybody...