[butterdezillion]

Nowhere does that state that the record in question is LEGALLY VALID.

Nothing in this statement rules out an amended and/or late birth certificate, which is legally non-valid.

I have no doubts that they’ve got a document that makes those claims. There are two issues above and beyond that, though - both of which I’ve been stating all along:

1. Is that document genuine? That would be known by auditing the record through microfilms, computer transaction logs, and forensic examination of the original.

2. Was the record late and/or amended? Previous responses by both the HDOH and former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama indicated that it was.

Because of the HDOH’s own tampering with records (falsified 1960-64 birth index, altered BC#’s on certified records, and the alteration of the name on Virginia Sunahara’s birth record), an audit needs to be done.

That is what I’ve been saying all along.

[BigGuy22]

“That is what I’ve been saying all along.”
__

I don’t doubt it for a minute.

But my question to you was, “Do you think you can satisfy those requirements?”

[philman_36]

Nowhere does that state that the record in question is LEGALLY VALID.
See 168. A very artfully worded response, IMO.