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?
Here’s a picture of the plaque in the lobby of the Kapiolani hospital, commemorating the birth of the most famous world leader since the birth of Christ:
Take a good look at that image. I traveled all the way to Hawaii to get that image. I took the pic on a Samsung phone, flew back to PA, ran it through a Xerox 7765.
As you can see, the zerox copier gave my pic a white halo.
The information that is actually on the list in List 2 matches what is on List 1.
The HDOH’s own explanation for how they do verifications contradicts what you are claiming. They say they can only verify information that is actually submitted. The only way it would even be possible for them to do otherwise - the only way that anybody could be confused about that at all - is if they actually list on the verification ALL the items that they are verifying, and they want to make it clear that they will not verify all the facts of birth if only one or two are submitted for verification.
And it is contradicted by the very verification itself, because they mention ONLY Honolulu. If the verification itself was verification of every fact submitted then they should not have picked out one lone “fact” and mentioned it in the verification.
All they verified was the existence of a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, II.
And the truth of the matter is that Onaka did not legally certify any of the verifications. The seal on those verifications is not Onaka’s seal. And the person whose seal it is (Loretta Fuddy’s) did not sign anything on those verifications. So we’ve got mismatched seal and signature, resulting in a document that isn’t lawfully certified - leaving neither Onaka nor Fuddy culpable for the greater crime of perjury, although both are still culpable under the Federal General False Statement Act.
The long and the short of it is that Hawaii was required to give a certified verification of every submitted fact that they can verify as true, and they gave a non-certified statement that refused to even MENTION any fact submitted on the application form except Honolulu (and their mention of Honolulu was only that it was “indicated” on the BC).
This matches the private statement by one of the HDOH workers that all verification requests - even ones known to be legally acceptable - had to be sent to the AG’s office so the AG could find a reason to deny the request, since it would look fishy if they give letters of verification for others but never for Obama. Because they would never issue a letter of verification for Obama. And they didn’t issue a legally-certified letter of verification for Obama. The director’s seal is supposed to be used next to the signature of the director, and Fuddy’s name is not on any of those letters of verification.
It is also consistent with Janice Okubo’s official UIPA response to me that they don’t issue letters of verification - in response to my request for a blank copy of the form they use to issue letters of verification. She said what I requested doesn’t exist because they don’t do letters of verification. Now we see OHSM FORM V-01 (08/01/01), which Okubo told me doesn’t exist. And we see a supposedly-certified letter of verification that Okubo said they don’t do. But it isn’t lawfully certified and it doesn’t verify any of the facts submitted on the verification application.
Also, the way of requesting a letter of verification is the same way of requesting a certified copy of a BC. If they have to have all the critical information submitted so they can verify that a BC exists for that person, then Obama didn’t submit enough information to be able to get copies of his BC; in Corley’s letter requesting the long-form (seen at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf) there is no mention of an application form - the only attachment she mentions is a letter from Obama - and the birth facts supposedly necessary for “locating” the BC were not included in her letter OR Obama’s.
What I’ve been saying all along about these supposed “letters of verification” for Obama not verifying anything is supported by the statutes, Ken Bennett’s own acknowledgment, what can be seen physically and forensically on the documents themselves, and both official/public and private communications by multiple HDOH workers. In addition, the records released by the White House show that Obama’s own request does not fulfill the legal requirements to get either a BC copy or a verification, if your theory about how they do things is correct.