Why didn’t the HDOH give a routine response to Bennett’s form requesting verification in lieu of a certified copy? They are not on the record anywhere saying specifically that Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961, for instance - which is what the official request form asked for.
Why not?
All they responded to was a SPECIFIC particularly-worded request that they verify WHAT WAS ON THE RECORD ON FILE. That was not a routine request to which HRS 338-14.3 refers (and they had Bennett DROP the request that WAS a routine request, for which HRS 338-14.3 applies). It was a specific request to be told what is on that document; that is NOT a request to verify the truthful facts of the birth. And Onaka told him what was on that document - certified that this is what was on the document. Nowhere did he say that the document was legally valid. He verified that the record exists, and he verified what was on the record.
You have to recognize the difference between an official verification and what Bennett asked for. An official verification is certification of the TRUE FACTS of the birth; what Bennett asked for in the special portion of his request was a verification of what is on the record they have. Do you recognize that difference? Do you recognize that Bennett’s request which was specifically answered specifically stated that those were to be items FROM THE RECORD - which is different than verifying that those items are the LEGALLY TRUE FACTS?
Routine response? Show me where "routine response" is defined in Hawaii statutes.
That was not a routine request to which HRS 338-14.3 refers
338-14.3 does not refer to a routine request.
338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.Bennett received:
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
a) the "verification of the existence of a certificate" per the above-underlined text of 338-14.3
No, ma'am. They did not. Nowhere in any of the email communication did anyone from Hawaii indicate in any manner, implied or otherwise, that Bennett must drop any part of his request. That is absolutely 100% factually incorrect. Bennett reworded his request on May 17th to provide the legal justification for which Hawaii asked. He did not drop any part of his March 30th request.
that is NOT a request to verify the truthful facts of the birth. And Onaka told him what was on that document - certified that this is what was on the document. Nowhere did he say that the document was legally valid.
Onaka does not have to state that the original vital record on file is legally valid because 338-14.3 stipulates that as a matter of law.
(b) A verification 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 have to recognize the difference between an official verification and what Bennett asked for.
There is NO difference. 338-14.3 stipulates exactly what will be provided and that what is provided is a certification of the event and the facts. That is, by any legal definition, an "official verification."
specifically stated that those were to be items FROM THE RECORD - which is different than verifying that those items are the LEGALLY TRUE FACTS?
No, ma'am. There is no legal difference. See 338-14.3 section (b) as quoted above. The Verification is a certification of the "legally true facts."