I’m sorry, but your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. provided an itemized list to say that they have a record on file that matches those items and YOU claimed that a “one-sentence” comment somehow verifies everything else that was not part of that itemized list. What would be the point of itemizing those items if a one-sentence reply verified the entire document?? And the attitude expressed in your comments comes across as unnecessarily condescending.
I’m picturing in my mind a “certification” which just says:
.......
What you said.
(signed) Alvin Onaka
........
How would something like that ever mean anything? A verification that doesn’t say specifically what it’s verifying would be useless. That’s why a real verification would not leave items 2-12 hanging without a sentence saying what those items ARE (for instance items on the birth certificate, items on the record, or true facts being verified).
But even on #1 the only thing specifically verified is the existence of a birth certificate. The use of the word “indicating” rather than “verifying” suggests that the BC itself doesn’t even swear to the accuracy of the claims - as if the sworn statements were on supplemental documents such as affidavits rather than on the BC itself. When Fukino gave her statement about having seen the “vital records verifying” that Obama was born in HI, she referred to multiple vital records. Even if she had referred to a singular vital record, that vital record would include not only the BC but all the affidavits in support of it - although for her to see the affidavits she would have to look in a different file. Hmm. Those are 2 different items in the retention schedule though. The birth certificates have a different reference code than the evidence file has. Maybe she DID have to use the plural there.
Maybe that’s why they used the word “indicating” rather than “verifying”. HRS 338-14.3 requires them to verify that the CERTIFICATE exists but they can’t even claim that the BIRTH CERTIFICATE itself “verifies” (swears to) anything, because the actual sworn statements are on affidavits in the evidence file - not on the birth certificate.
The certification says that the INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE was used to verify those items (which were requested to be FROM THE RECORD). The BC would have note of what affidavits were on file to support the claims. Could be that those notes were used as justification for consulting the evidence files as well, and reporting what was in the evidence file in this “verification”.
Um, no, I didn't. I have no idea where you got that idea.