The HDOH website says that the procedure for getting a letter of verification is the same as for getting a certified copy, and links to the application form. They also say that a request for verification has to be done via snail-mail or in person.
Whether information matches their records legally means nothing if their record is non-valid. What’s the legal use of information matching a non-valid record? Saying that it matches proves nothing, unless it is somewhere specifically stated that the record it matches is legally valid. That has never been said. And the 1960-64 birth index has been specifically altered to include non-valid records, so the birth index also proves nothing about the validity of the record - and actually RAISES suspicions.
But the way a verification is done is that a person submits the information to be verified, and Onaka writes a letter of verification repeating back the facts that he verifies as true. Anything he doesn’t repeat back on his letter is what they can’t verify because it is not claimed on a legally valid record.
So him not verifying a submitted fact is a big deal. The statute requires Onaka to verify ANY information submitted, if he can certify that it is the way the even actually happened (which is the case if the record is legally valid/prima facia evidence).
The only reason for Onaka to verify the birth city as Honolulu but NOT verify the birth island as Oahu is if he can’t certify that Obama who was born in Honolulu was born on the island of Oahu. He already verified that all the claims actually on the White House image are also on the record they have, so why would he be able to verify Honolulu but not be able to verify Oahu? The logical explanation is that he is not actually verifying Honolulu as the place of birth but just that Honolulu is INDICATED (claimed) on the BC whose existence he is verifying (which is also what the grammatics of his sentence says....)
So is that the "smoking gun" here--the absence of that statement? I'm wondering how you think Onaka's reply would have been different if in fact he knows the birth record is "legally valid/prima facia evidence." He verified Bennett's list of points, and he verified that the COLB (which contains all the other information Bennett submitted on the request form) matches their records. If he'd just added "..., which is a legally valid record," would that render your argument moot?
I'm sorry, I'm sure you feel like you've explained this a zillion times. But I've never been able to follow all the details of your argument, and since you offered the short version here, I thought I might try to clear up some things.
I am relatively new to FreeRepublic, consequently: caveat emptor.
My perspective is that of an unschooled, hoi polloi. Therefore, I concede that Mr. Obama may be eligible to serve as POTUS. Apart from that concession, those arguing against an investigation regarding eligibility, should acknowledge, that a rational determination cannot be made without an open investigation into the inconsistencies and claims made against the POTUS. Those who peremptorily wish the controversy away, should concede that only neutral forensic experts subject to cross examination be allowed to examine the primary evidence and only then can this speculation be resolved.
The obvious conclusion would to demand that our representative dedicate as much of there resources to resolving this potential constitutional crisis as they dedicate to appearing on various news outlets. But I have little hope, some, but little.