Replies

“True and accurate representation” has nothing to do with whether it was a crappy photocopy. The issue is whether it accurately represents everything that is conveyed in the original document. This is standard legal language. Onaka would not verify that the image was an accurate representation of the original record.

To understand the “legally non-valid” part you have to know a little bit about evidentiary/probative value. There are varying levels of legitimacy for records. For instance, in Hawaii parents can add a child’s name within the first 6 months and it’s no big deal - doesn’t affect the legal validity of the record, because that’s an understandable thing. When people start making MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS - changing the vital story of the birth: gender, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s name, father’s name... then HI says, “Whoa. You didn’t know where the birth happened when you filed this thing?” That kind of amendment raises red flags. Incomplete information raises a red flag. If you claim a Kapiolani birth but don’t have a doctor’s signature until somebody files an affidavit 45 years later.... that’s fishy.

The State of Hawaii says that birth certificates that are classified as “late” (that is, the BC is completed a year or more after the birth) have no probative value of their own. Hawaii doesn’t vouch for anything on those. If somebody wants to make the case that those facts are true they are welcome to do so, and if they can convince a judicial or administrative person or body that the claims on the BC are accurate, then more power to them - but the State of Hawaii doesn’t vouch for any of those facts being true.

Same thing with BC’s that are classified as “altered”. Those are alterations that are so significant that even Hawaii is not gullible enough to automatically accept those claims as true. Major administrative amendments, which call into question how somebody could mistake the wrong information for something so basic when they filled out the BC in the first place.

So when Onaka is told (by HRS 338-14.3) that he has to verify whatever is submitted - but that verifying means he is certifying the truth of the claims.... that means that he cannot verify anything from one of these BC’s that Hawaii won’t vouch for. That’s what “non-valid” means. It means there are discrepancies so wide that the BC isn’t considered credible by the government - though a person is welcome to try to convince a judge or administrator otherwise, which is why they store the record and have it available.

That is why I cited HRS 338-17, which says that a late or altered BC’s probative value is determined when presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Until that time it has NO VALUE. It is non-valid.

Contrast that with the normal standard, which is “prima facie”. HI says that as long as a BC is completed within the first 30 days after birth, that is considered solid enough evidence that a case could be made for the claim’s accuracy. It is prima facie evidence. Unless there is strong evidence brought up against those claims, it is legally assumed that they are true. It is legally VALID.

When Onaka is asked to verify birth claims and those claims are found on a legally valid record he HAS to verify that those facts are true.

So - when you realize the difference between probative/valid and non-probative/non-valid - you can easily see that since the claims Bennett submitted ARE found on the document they have but Onaka would not verify those facts as true (certifying that the event actually happened that way), that tells us immediately that Onaka was looking at a legally non-valid record.

He can verify that something is ON that record regardless of whether the record is valid or not (which is all he did in that verification), but he cannot verify anything as true if it’s non-valid and he HAS to verify it as true if it’s valid. It’s one or the other. Onaka verified what was ON the record but would not verify the truth of anything on that record. A non-valid record.