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.
No one wants to be the one that sets off the trip wire to the claymore mine this is attached to.
Bennett took a cut - a weak one. Onaka answered the bell - carefully. And all was declared good.
What Onaka could do to terminate this is easy. He can simply indicate that the image posted by the WH is match - both information wise and image wise to what Hawaii has on file. Then he can provide a certified printed copy of the actual original LFBC record and show it matches exactly what the WH has posted.
I am sure this is coming once someone can get the digital library updated. After all the ‘originals’ have been transferred to a digital (likely optical) library years ago. But the challenge with these read only optical libraries is that they changing a record is hard - on purpose - since they were designed to permanently archive paper documents.
No official in office anywhere wants this to escalate. That is obvious.