Onaka said nothing about Obama’s gender, date of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name. Those were right on the application form - which is clearly a request for Onaka to verify that those are the true facts surrounding the birth. In the context where he HAD to verify that the facts were true (as opposed to simply being CLAIMED on a record), he verified nothing.
He mentioned Honolulu but only in the context of that being a claim on the birth certificate. He never, at any time, said that anything on that verification was verified as a true fact.
He was specifically asked to verify those things, by name. If he doesn’t specifically say that he verifies a birth fact, then he isn’t verifying that birth fact. That’s the mechanism whereby a person knows whether the fact they cited is really a true fact. Onaka did not verify any of those facts. Don’t get distracted by him verifying what is on the birth record; if the birth record isn’t legally valid that makes absolutely no difference. The substance is what he was asked to verify AS TRUE - and he would not verify ANY of those facts as TRUE.
HRS 338-14.3 uses the words “shall issue a verification”. The key legal word is “shall”. That’s mandatory. According to HRS 338-14.3 when is it legally acceptable for Onaka to NOT verify a fact pertaining to the vital event related to the certificate?
Don’t get distracted by side-shows. Onaka could have verified that the BC says the moon is made of good green cheese, and it would still be nothing more than a CLAIM, if the BC is not legally valid. Same with every other thing that Onaka merely verifies as being a CLAIM on the record. Claims don’t matter; truth matters. An Onaka would not verify ANY of those facts as true.
Not quite correct. Onaka *did* verify that the facts on the copy match what is in their records. The only thing I see up for discussion is whether the COLB Bennett attached is a true and correct copy, per Onaka.
He was specifically asked to verify those things, by name. If he doesn’t specifically say that he verifies a birth fact, then he isn’t verifying that birth fact. That’s the mechanism whereby a person knows whether the fact they cited is really a true fact. Onaka did not verify any of those facts. Don’t get distracted by him verifying what is on the birth record; if the birth record isn’t legally valid that makes absolutely no difference. The substance is what he was asked to verify AS TRUE - and he would not verify ANY of those facts as TRUE.
But why would anyone assume the birth record on file in HI is not legally valid? Someone not spending these hours of studying the situation won’t understand what Onaka should have said to verify the record. I personally believe Obama was not eligible. But I can’t see where A fraud seems obvious to the newcomer to this subject.
The average person needs to know why a record in the state recorder is not valid. Like I said before, there is a record of my birth in my country recorder. No official there witnessed my birth. What can they do to verify my facts besides verify that such and such info matches the record they have?