In order for Dr. Onaka's statement to be valid, the facts don't have to be TRUE. They just have to match what the WH CoLB asserts. Dr Onaka knows what facts the DoH has on file. He obviously doesn't know for sure that those facts are actually true.
E.g., the long form lists Dr. David Sinclair as the obstetrician who delivered Obama in 1961. There have been claims it was actually Dr. Rodney T. West, famously quoted as having said at the time, "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about." Even if it were somehow come out that Dr. West was the actual obstetrician, Dr. Onaka's certification would still be valid, because it refers to the facts as known by the DoH, even though those might not be the real facts. Proof that West did the delivery would have to be produced separately.
Of course, in court, the certificate, backed up by Dr. Onaka's declaration, will rule. The presumption would be that the certificate is true. In order to attack the certificate, you would need strong evidence that material facts in it are not true — e.g., he was actually born in Kenya or similar. The burden would fall entirely on you to disprove what the certificate says. And pixels and layers won't hack it, given Onaka's confirmation.
“Of course, in court, the certificate, backed up by Dr. Onaka’s declaration, will rule.”
So only one person, Onaka, needed to be bribed or threatened or willingly volunteered into lying to save Barry’s biscuits...and his campaign had hundreds of $ millions available to get at Onaka, Abercrombie and a few other past and present HI officials to bribe with $$ or threats.
Given that, what, the last three governors of Barry’s home state went to jail and numerous other state governors and high officials have taken money to violate the law, maybe Onaka isn’t bending over backwards to tell the truth, as buttedezillion suggests, but is flat-out lying!
You are totally ignoring everything I have pointed out about Hawaii statute which says that birth certificates are prima facie evidence UNLESS THEY ARE LATE AND/OR ALTERED. The ONLY lawful reason for Onaka to refuse to verify the claims submitted on the verification application form if those claims match what is on the BC they have is if the BC they have is not prima facia evidence and so Onaka is not legally allowed to presume that the claimed facts are true.
How many times do I have to say this? I can’t think of any way to be more explicit or clear on this. Late and altered BC’s are NOT PRIMA FACIA (legally presumed true, taken at face value) EVIDENCE. The whole point of asking for facts to be verified is to find out if those particular claims have any legal validity.
Onaka thus effectively confirmed that the BC they have is NOT prima facia evidence/legally valid. He can’t verify the facts because they are NOT legally presumed to be true. The burden of proof falls on whoever is making those claims - NOT on those who disbelieve the claims. And that is precisely why Obama will let a decorated military surgeon lose his livelihood and sit in jail (instead of being in Afghanistan treating wounded heroes) rather than simply allow this non-embarrassing, supposedly run-of-the-mill, routine BC to be seen by anybody but his lackeys. If any honest person actually saw it they would see that it had a 2006 amendment supported by an affidavit, which is not necessary for a Kapiolani birth and thus totally blows the credibility of the Kapiolani birth claim.
So everything you are saying is backwards because you fail to account for the impact of the BC lacking the prima facia standard because it is late and/or altered. Do not say a word more until you understand what difference that prima facia rating makes.
If the BC was prima facia evidence, then the claims on it would be presumed true, Onaka would verify all the facts claimed on it, and the burden of proof would fall on “the birthers”.
If the BC is not prima facia evidence, the claims could not be legally presumed to be true, Onaka would refuse to verify the facts even though the claims match what is on their non-valid BC at the HDOH, and the legal burden to prove those claims would fall on Obama. And that is precisely what has happened. Onaka has refused to verify the truth of any birth claims even though he has said that the submitted claims match what is claimed on the BC they have.
The statute says that a verification is certification that the event actually happened as claimed by the applicant for the verification. So Onaka can’t just verify a claim because it matches what is on a BC. It has to match what is on a VALID/PRIMA FACIE BC. That is the whole question being asked of Onaka: Which of the following birth facts does the State of HI legally presume to be true according to the standards set up in HI statute: Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Husseing Obama? Onaka verified that they have a BC that claims a Honolulu birth. He did not verify that ANY of the claims on the BC are legally presumed to be true. Nowhere are the words “WAS BORN” on that verification. Nowhere is the word TRUE used on that verification. Nowhere does Onaka make any claim about what actually happened.
“In order for Dr. Onaka’s statement to be valid, the facts don’t have to be TRUE. They just have to match what the WH CoLB asserts. Dr Onaka knows what facts the DoH has on file. He obviously doesn’t know for sure that those facts are actually true. “
This would appear to a massive point mutual agreement.
Legal fakery happens every day - ask any adopted person. One identity disappears and poof - a new one comes to (legal) life. All with new documents and (of course) legally sealed documents.
The only thing the bureaucrat can do and should do is validate the official legal records. DOH has played this game well. Giving answers that say - we looked and there are records. Of course the press went wild claiming that this verified the narrative story. When - as you point out so well above - it does not. But it provides periodic smoke screens.
One person who did not have this convenient route at his disposal at a critical juncture was HDP Chairman and now Hawaii Senator - Brian Schatz. Schatz was supposed to sign a document stating - in writing - that Obama was natural born Citizen. He did not do it. He removed the wording - invalidating the document - then signed the document.
He did not want to lose his chair when the music stops. Fuddy has probably lost her chair as the music winds down.