BG2. I don’t know how to be more clear about this. HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of late and altered BC’s has to be determined by the administrative or judicial official or body to whom the BC is presented as evidence. All other BC’s are expressly given the status of prima facie evidence. You have GOT to know what those words mean, in order for any of this to make sense. Prima facia means “on its face”. It is to be taken at face value, presumed to be true, because it has already met the standards required to have some legal credibility. Prima facia evidence can still be refuted and disproven, but unless it IS refuted and disproven the claims are legally presumed to be true. That is an evidentiary standard.
The HDOH’s Administrative Rules say what standards are acceptable for birth claims before a BC is given the label of LATE or ALTERED. If the BC isn’t completed with all the required information within a year of the birth, it is considered suspect and receives the LATE classification. If major administrative changes are made to it - changes so large that they call into question how any honest person could have made such a “mistake” - it calls into question the honesty of all the claims and the BC is labeled as ALTERED. The LATE and ALTERED status are both legal red flags, to say that these claims need further scrutiny. Because those BC’s are not prima facia evidence, they are basically just a rumor, having no weight at all until a judge looks at all the contradictory evidence, sorts it all out according to prescribed legal evidentiary standards, and determines whether the claims are legally credible.
None of that is Onaka’s job. His job is to verify any facts that are on a prima facia/valid/unflagged BC and to refuse to verify any claims made on a BC flagged as LATE or ALTERED, which according to HI statute can only legally be sorted out by judicial and administrative officials qualified to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence.
He can say that the claims match what is on the non-valid BC, but that doesn’t mean anything because the BC itself has no legal value.
Before you say anything else, please tell me whether or not you “get it”. Do you understand the difference between a prima facia BC and a LATE and/or ALTERED BC, and why Onaka has to verify the presumed truth of facts claimed on the former and has to refuse to verify the presumed truth of facts claimed on the latter? Do you understand that claims matching what is on a legally-worthless BC are just as legally worthless as the non-valid BC on which they are claimed?
“BG2. I don’t know how to be more clear about this. HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of late and altered BC’s has to be determined by the administrative or judicial official or body to whom the BC is presented as evidence.”
__
Really, you can be more clear. Much more clear.
HRS §338-16 clearly states that late and altered birth certificates shall ‘be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.’
Since neither the COLB or the LFBC is so marked, why are you arguing as though they were?