If claims are made on a legally valid record, the claims are prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and are legally presumed to be true. If the record is legally valid the “call on the field” is that the claims are true, and the burden of proof is on the person challenging those claims. If there isn’t enough evidence to overcome the presumption of truth, then the ruling on the field stands. And all Hawaii birth records are prima facia evidence EXCEPT those that are “late” or “altered”.
If it was filed way late or had major pieces of critical information changed, it is legally suspect. HRS 338-17 says that those records have no probative value unless and until they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body and the probative value determined. The HDOH doesn’t do investigations. They just keep records. And they flag late and altered records so that everybody will know that the State of Hawaii considers the claims suspect. The law says that the evidence has to be sorted out in a legal setting (settings which are subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence) before those birth certificates are worth ANYTHING, legally speaking.
If the record is late or altered it is NOT prima facia evidence. The claims are NOT considered to be true. The burden of proof is totally shifted. The “call on the field” is that the claims are NOT true, and it is up to the registrant to overturn that call - to present his/her case to a judge and try to convince the judge that the record has any evidentiary value whatsoever.
All the cases so far have assumed that Obama has a prima facia record - because you wouldn’t expect the 1960-64 birth index to include records that are legally worth as much as toilet paper. But the HDOH altered their birth index so it would include non-valid (legally worthless) birth certificates also. And now Onaka has revealed that Obama’s BC is one of those legally-worthless records that was put into the 1960-64 birth index. The record itself is so suspect that Onaka cannot lawfully vouch for the accuracy of any of the claims on it.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. That’s what Klayman informed DNC Counsel Bob Bauer of - and Bauer is a lawyer so knows darn well that this is true. So did the MDEC attorneys, which is why they wanted to focus on “matching” - because “matching” is the best Onaka can verify, since the record itself is legal trash. It is literally a $3 bill, and the attorneys knew darn good and well that they were asking if the “information contained in” the White House $3 bill MATCHES the “information contained in” the HDOH $3 bill. It’s a totally irrelevant question, because they are both legally worth nothing.
That same concept - presumption of truth - applies to Onaka’s verification. The legal “call on the field” is a presumption of REGULARITY - that is, that routine requests are handled in compliance with the law. To overcome that presumption of regularity, you have to have evidence that the request does NOT obey the law. IOW, Onaka is presumed to be accurate, unless you have evidence to overcome that presumption. The burden of proof falls on those who want to say that Onaka “just forgot” or some other such thing. Right now, the legal presumption - the legal “call on the field” - is that Onaka complied with HRS 338-14.3 as he swore on the letter of verification, and only verified what he lawfully could. If he didn’t verify something it was for the only reason allowed by HRS 338-14.3: because he CAN’T, because the claim is not found on a legally-valid record.
It could not be “filed way late” we know it was recorded and “late” certificates most be non-recorded.
Box 6c - “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”
What is the situations that get this entered into Box 6c?
Could the grandparents go to the DOH and say - Our daugther had a baby at Kapiolani Hospital and we would like to register him?
Could Obama go to the DOH in 2007 and say I was born at Kapiolani Hospital and I want tpo register my birth?
Is that even reasonable?
What precisely did they do? (what is a birth index, etc). Please use terms like book, paper, etc. so we can understand. There is a lot of evidence for a piece of paper submitted in 1961 placed in a book with pertinent info on it (and possibly info we have never seen) that has been xeroxed, signed, sealed and sent out. Those certified copies unfortunately have not been viewed by anyone trustworthy, but there is ample evidence that they the certified copies exist.