“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.” - Onaka
He is not certifying that “the above is a true and correct copy”. He is certifying that he looked at a record.
Onaka, elsewhere in his email to Bennett, said, “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 in our file.”
Original what? Internet image? Or vital record?
Onaka’s slippery language is a contrivance.
A routine, ordinary, mundane, “the above is a true and correct copy” would suffice, and it is reasonable to expect such.
Artfully worded customized responses composed under legal guidance, against a backdrop of evolving statements, for what should be routine matter, does not instill confidence.
That's incorrect. Onaka certified that the 12 specific items he listed were obtained DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL vital record on file at the HDoH.
Onaka, elsewhere in his email to Bennett, said, “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 in our file.” Original what? Internet image? Or vital record?
Original vital record.
Onaka’s slippery language is a contrivance.
Slippery language? Contrivance?
The only contrivance I see is that of those who refuse to accept the very clear proof that Hawaii has Obama's original birth certificate on file and that the data contained on the LFBC released by the WH matches the data on said original vital record.
Those who continue to parse statements from Hawaii are, IMO, attempting to make those statements fit their preconceived conclusions rather than facing the truth.