Replies

The HI statutes are clear. Birth certificates are prima facia evidence UNLESS they are late and/or altered. Prima facia means that the legal presumption is that the claims are true. So if a claim is made on a record that is not late or altered, then it is legally presumed to be true and Onaka would have to verify those facts when requested to do so.

If the claims are made on a late or altered BC, he cannot presume that they are true. He can’t verify anything then, except that a BC exists for that person.

And that is why it doesn’t work to just say that if there is verification of ANYTHING it is verification of EVERYTHING. They have to be able to verify the existence of a birth record for a person if they’ve got one for them - otherwise nobody would even know that there was any claim on the books, to be brought forward in a court case (for example). But they are required to store and keep track of everything that’s been submitted to them, even if it’s not prima facia evidence. It could literally be a crayon scratching on a piece of toilet paper, as in the funny illustrations, and Hawaii would have to keep track of that birth record and acknowledge its existence if somebody requested to know about it. But at the same time, they could not verify the truth of any of the FACTS claimed on that record, because it is not legally presumed to be true. It is hearsay, a claim that would have to be taken up in an administrative or judicial proceeding so THE JUDGE OR ADMINISTRATOR can apply the rules of evidence and see whether the claims are suitably substantiated. Onaka isn’t equipped or authorized to do that kind of analysis. He only needs to know if the BC is late or altered; if it is he leaves it up to the judges to sort out. He verifies that they have a BC but cannot verify the truth of any of the claims on that BC.

The verification application is an application to have the registrar verify whether the submitted major administrative facts (name, date, gender, birth city, birth island, mother, and father) are legally presumed to be true. It’s not asking what is on this or that piece of paper, what matches what, or anything else. The legal question being asked on that application form is this: Which of these facts does the State of HI presume to be true: 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.

Onaka would not verify that ANY of those facts were presumed to be true. He would not verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. He was asked to verify FROM THE BIRTH RECORD various items such as hospital name, mother’s date of birth, etc. If he could verify the TRUTH of any of those facts he would also have to verify all the above facts too. Obviously he is not verifying the TRUTH of those facts but is instead verifying that they are FROM THE BIRTH RECORD, as Bennett’s words technically said. And those things are claimed on the birth record; they just can’t be presumed to be true because that record itself is late or altered and doesn’t qualify as prima facia evidence.

Do you understand what I am saying? This is what is in the statutes, by which Alvin Onaka is legally bound. The Klayman letter that I gave you the link to gives the citations of the statutes and shows them.