“If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?”
We don’t know what Dr. Onaka was thinking. Maybe he thought he was just being thorough by adding the statement about being born in “Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Hawaii code says “A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
The problem as I see it is that we have three unique verifications that were based on three unique requests. We don’t know what standard format for a verfication is. I would guess that if I asked for a verification of a birth and if all of the items on my request form matched the original BC, I would not get an item by item verification but only a simply “I verify the existence of the original record” or words to that effect. Implict in that is that the items on the request form are “as stated by the applicant.”
But if I enter wrong information in the request form (such as Kauai instead of Oahu), then maybe I would receive an item by item verification with the wrong items not being verified.
Who knows.
It’s a moot question because Bennett submitted all the same information as is on the record - and yet Onaka only mentioned Honolulu and none of the other things from the application.