Yes. That is correct.
For instance, if Onaka said, “I verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male WAS born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama”, then he would be verifying that the event happened as described by Ken Bennett.... He never said that.
You're making an argument from silence. The statute does not require him to verify the events in the manner that you would prefer to have it.
The certifying statement at the bottom talks about Onaka using the actual record to verify the birth facts.
Yes. That is correct. And significant to the point of being dispositive of the issue, in the legal sense, that is.
That statement is there on verifications even when no birth facts are verified.
I am without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about that assertion, but I'll take your word for it. It is not really germane to the substance at issue. Items are contained in gazillions of bureaucratic forms that do not apply to every usage of a form. Forms are often multipurpose in nature.
Onaka checked the original record for Obama’s gender, date of birth, etc, but even though the record claimed Obama is a male born on Aug 4, 1961, Onaka would not verify the truth of either of those things. If he could certify that those things are really true, he HAD to verify those things.
Why didn’t he verify those things then?
He did verify them, as dinodino pointed out to you back in post 90:
Bennett asked DOH to explicitly verify twelve items (request letter dated March 30), in addition to what he listed on his verification request. Onaka responded with a page verifying the twelve items Bennett requested, and the statement, “...I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.” Onaka included the wording, “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”Thank you dinodino. Now back to me. Note that Onaka refers to the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request". Obama’s birth date, gender, city or island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name - all the things that were on the application for a verification constitute an information match, and thus by definition in the statute, the verification itself "...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."
You yourself are tacitly acknowledge some of the information content referred to by Onaka by stating, "but even though the record claimed Obama is a male born on Aug 4, 1961,"
It does not matter whether or not the verification was done in the form that you would prefer. Onaka's verification itself, by statutory definition, certified that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
Therefore the premise of your persistent question, namely; that Onaka did not verify the facts of the event, is incorrect, in the legal sense, in my opinion.
Cordially,
If he didn’t say it he didn’t do it. If Aug 4, 1961 is not on that verification, then that date has not been verified. Who by looking at that verification - which is a stand-alone legal document - would ever be able to say that Onaka verified an Aug 4, 1961 birth?
Let me put it this way. If Alvin Onaka gets a request to verify that Donald Duck was born in Honolulu on Sept 11, 2001 and has a non-valid birth certificate (written on toilet paper) in his office claiming that Donald Duck was born in Honolulu on Sept 11, 2001.... how does HRS 338-14.3 require him to respond to that request?