You are totally clueless about prima facie evidence. And you apparently still haven’t read HRS 338-14.3 which clearly states that when submitted facts are verified it is certification that the event happened the way that the requestor stated. The statute REQUIRES the HDOH to do what you say can never be done: state the way that the event really happened.
If you understood what prima facie means, you would know that the legal status of the record gives ANYBODY the legal authority to presume that the claims on it are true. It is considered “self-authenticating”, in the language you Fogblowers use when you’re not trying to run away from Onaka’s disclosures.
On one hand you would have us able to say that Obama really was born in Hawaii because we’ve seen the manipulated White House image (which doesn’t even have the right security background on it) but on the other hand you wouldn’t allow the custodian of that record to say Obama’s Hawaii birth claim is legally-deficient according to Hawaii statute. Sheesh.
But I think I know enough to recognize that we have to alternative processes here. One pertains to issuance of a certified copy of a certificate. The other to verification in lieu of a certified copy. The statute you hang your argument on as to "prima facie" (338-17) pertains to the probative value of a certificate (under the specified circumstances). But with Bennett we're dealing with the verification process, and that comes with its own, separate statute as to probative value, namely 338-14.3(b). So what I know about "prima facie" is enough to tell me this: given two statutes that apply to different processes, always choose the one that supplies the rule applicable to the situation presented in the case before you!
And you apparently still haven’t read HRS 338-14.3 which clearly states that when submitted facts are verified it is certification that the event happened the way that the requestor stated.
Exactly my point. Bennett submitted a copy of a certificate and application that refers to Pres. Obama's birth having been in the State of Hawaii. Onaka verified that the vital records confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii. So that is certification that the event happened as per Bennett's request.
The statute REQUIRES the HDOH to do what you say can never be done: state the way that the event really happened.
Nonsense. Here's the statute:
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (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.
(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.
Again. The requester subits a fact (or set of facts) to be verified. The Custodian checks the requested fact as they pertain to the certificate and verifies it against the vital record. If the fact is so verified, then the statute (subpart b) supplies the legal effect and confirmation that the event thus took place as stated by the applicant. (The legal effect in Hawaii, that is. Outside of Hawaii each tribunal supplies its own evidence rule, as noted in my prior post).
If you understood what prima facie means, you would know that the legal status of the record gives ANYBODY the legal authority to presume that the claims on it are true.
And here you're essentially recognizing a point I made to you earlier:
As to that key birth fact Dr. Onaka verifies point-blank."
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Now to most any reader that pretty much affirms in about as simple and direct fashion possible that per the HI vital records BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Assuming that Beth Chapman knew of this verification by Hawaii of the key birth fact, wouldn't that suffice for her to conclude Obama was eligible?
On one hand you would have us able to say that Obama really was born in Hawaii because we’ve seen the manipulated White House image . . .
I'd say, rather, that for most persons who understand that vital records information is invariably determined by a certification/verification by the vital records custodian, Hawaii has in two ways substantiated the WH copy 1) by linking the WH image on the Hawaii website and 2) through Onaka's verifications to several state secretaries. You have your protestations and denials; though I think nearly anyone but you they are tortuous and incomprehensible.