The above two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other.
According to HRS 338-14.3 (a) & (b), the act of verifying the existence of a record is legal affirmation that the facts as stated on the request form by the applicant are what is on file and is legal certification that the events did occur.
You do not seem to understand that very basic legal fact.
A verification of the existence of a record is just that: verification of the existence of a record.
A verification of an August 4, 1961 birth is a legal certification that there was an August 4, 1961 birth.
But Hawaii sort of skipped that part...
The only specific items they would verify is that they have a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama II which “indicates” a birth in Honolulu, HI. What is the legal significance of “indicates” - particularly when the standard term would be “verifies”?
Why did they not use the standard language of saying they have a legally-valid birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii verifying the place of birth as Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu?
After that item, they started a whole new list using a different format and beginning with “Name of person: Barack Hussein Obama II”. Re-stating the name separates item 1 from the rest of the items on that list. Item 1 is the only thing they did that pertains to the actual request for a “verification in lieu of a certified copy”. The DOH website (at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html ) says that
“Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. “
The other (”in addition to”) request was to “please verify the following items FROM THE RECORD OF BIRTH” (emphasis mine). You’ve never responded to my question about whether a verification of something from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth would mean that the State was certifying the truthfulness of the claims on a COHB. That’s a critical question. If Bennett had left off the “from the record of birth”, then I could possibly see your point. But by stating that it was to be verified from the record of birth, he’s just asking them to confirm that those items were claimed on the record. That says nothing about the legal validity of the record or the claims on that record.