No, it’s not the HDOH’s job to figure out what really happened. All they do is store the records, provide certified copies of records, and tell people whether or not particular birth facts are found on a valid record - in which case the record is prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and the legal presumption is that the facts are true. If somebody wants to claim otherwise they have to come up with evidence to prove that the claims are not true.
But when there’s a problem with the record - when it was completed a year or more after the birth or had major claims changed without a legally-valid reason - Hawaii considers the claims suspect, and HRS 338-17 says that the probative (legal evidentiary) value of the record has to be determined by somebody legally authorized to examine evidence according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
It is precisely because the HDOH CANNOT do that kind of investigation that Obama legally HAS to present the non-valid record as evidence before somebody who CAN. And it can’t be Congress or anybody legislative. It has to be a judicial or administrative person or body; they are the people who are bound to the Federal Rules of Evidence and are thus legally able to make a determination of the probative value and of the actual birth facts.
Onaka is just confirming that the record doesn’t meet the legal standards to be legally valid (be considered prima facia - “on its face” - evidence, evidence which is legally taken at face value unless there is evidence that the claimed facts are not true). Since Obama has no legally-valid (prima facia) record, the legal burden of proof is on him to prove that these facts are true, instead of the burden of proof being on whoever wants to say these facts AREN’T true.
IOW, the legal presumption with a non-valid record is that the facts are NOT true, and it is up to Obama to provide evidence to prove that they are.
Does that help you understand what’s going on here?
No, because I don't follow how you jumped to the conclusion that there's a problem with the record. As far as I can tell, it went like this:
1. Bennett asked for "a verification in lieu of a certified copy" of Obama's birth record--specifically, a verification "from the record of birth" of a list of items, plus a verification that the COLB is a "true and accurate representation of the original record."
2. Onaka replied "I verify the following," referring to Bennett's list of items, plus "I verify that the information [in the COLB] matches the original record in our files."
Your argument--or Klayman's, anyway--seems to be that verifying that something "matches the original record" isn't the same as verifying that it's a "true and accurate representation." And that all Onaka did was verify that the information matched, not that the information was accurate.
If I'm right in my understanding of your argument, what I'm wondering is how Onaka could verify that the information was accurate, if verifying that it matched the original record isn't good enough.