I have no doubt that a Hawaiian Birth certificate would INDICATE that someone might have been born in Hawaii, but INDICATE does not have the same meaning as the word "Prove" or "Demonstrate", it means "Might be."
Given that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people who were not actually born in Hawaii, this "Indicate" word has even less meaning as proof than it would in a state that does not do this very weird thing.
Even if this was an adoption birth certificate the place of birth would not change.
And how do we know that this is true? I certainly do not know that this is true. What proof do we have that a state which issues birth certificates to people who were not actually born in that state, will not also fudge the place of birth in the case of adoptions?
And the Bennett letter of verification goes on to verify that the Hospital was “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and no this could not be the hospital that he was taken days or weeks after he was born and examined.
Up to a year, last time I checked the Hawaiian law on the topic. And Yes, wherever he is examined, can be listed as the place of birth, and whomever the doctor was that examined can be listed as the attending physician at birth.
Hawaiian law allows for lots of fudging of vital statistics details. There are those who assert this is by intent, because after World War II, Hawaii became a processing house for back door American Citizenship for the entire pacific rim.
When you claim any child born on a ship in route to Hawaii, it gives you a lot of leeway to make any child an American Citizen if people want it bad enough.
"Prove" is a legal conclusion. A fact witness doesn't give opinion on a point of law. Here, Onaka, a custodian of records, is verifying what the Hawaii vital records state as to a given event. The Hawaii statutes provide the legal conclusion as to proof:
"(b) 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."
Given that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people who were not actually born in Hawaii,
And as concerns Obama, your support for this assertion is . . . what?
No birth certificate provides proof all indicate a place of birth. A number of states have similar laws. Hawaii’s law was first written in 1982 so wouldn’t apply to a 1961 birth certificate.
We know that Hawaii adoption birth certificates list actual place of birth because that is required by law.
Nowhere in Hawaii law does it state that a delayed birth certificate lists the place of examination as the birth place. Or that an examining Doctor can be listed as the attendant. How can a doctor who was at the birth certify the hour of birth?
It would appear that those who assert Hawaii was handing out BCs like lollipops are people who don’t want to accept a Hawaiian birth certificate. They present no evidence to back up their claims which strangely enough did begin until 2008.
On the other hand data shows there was no large spike in record births in the years before, during or after WWII.
Just unsubstantiated claims.