Jeff, you’re being stupid. The date of birth was not on that letter of verification. When Ken Bennett was asked why not he said he assumed it was an error. He assumed that what he received from Onaka was wrong. Even Bennett doesn’t deny that Onaka failed to verify what was asked of him. He just assumed that Onaka MEANT to verify it. Sounds a whole lot like “judge’s knowledge” - the sharia method of naking legal determinations... But Bennett acknowledged that Onaka did NOT verify the date of birth.
And the statute says he must verify what is submitted if he can.
Why wouldn’t he? Do you agree with Bennett that Onaka’s letter of verification was a mistake and he actually MEANT to verify all that stuff even though he didn’t verify it?
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
Hawaii Statute §338-14.3 says the DOH shall furnish "a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate."
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
The 6 items on the form gets you the "verification of the existence of a certificate" (those are the items that helps them determine they have the correct certificate). And the other 10 items SoS Bennett requested are the "other information" mentioned in 14.3.
Also in the Arizona verification is Dr. Onaka's statement that he verifies that the information on the PDF matches the information on the original BC on file.
Take these two lists
List 1
1) Obama
2) 8/4/61
3) Honolulu
4) Amended
5) Delayed
List 2
1) Obama
2) 8/4/61
3) Honolulu
Can you verify that the information in List 2 matches the information in list 1?