I agree that they verified the existence of a record for Obama. But they never provided information about the vital event because they never responded to the request FORM. They DID provide information about what was ON the record they have.
Those are the exact same things that Fukino did in her 2 announcements. In her first announcement she personally verified that they have a record for Obama. In her second she said that the VITAL RECORDS (plural) verify (which legally means “swears to”) that Obama was born in Hawaii.
In this document Onaka (or, more correctly, some lower-level staffer; see the closing paragraph of this comment) does the exact same thing. He says he personally verifies the existence of a record (without saying it is a legally-valid record, which has been the question all along, as they well know). Points 2-11 don’t say whether it is he who is verifying (like Fukino’s first release) or whether it is the record that is verifying (like Fukino’s 2nd release); there is no sentence whatsoever to clarify that (such as “and I verify that the facts of birth are the following:” or “and the record states the following:”). But the certifying statement placed by a lower-level staffer says that this verification used the INFORMATION in the record to “verify” (swear to) those items.
And the request that Bennett initially gave about this one part that HI actually responded to clarified that he wanted them to verify that those items were FROM THE RECORD. He was not asking them to verify the true facts; he specifically stated that he wanted them to verify FROM THE RECORD - that those claims were on the record.
You are the one who is saying that Bennett’s re-wording was only about why he was or wasn’t eligible to receive a verification. Here, again, is the request:
” In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth....”
The attached form was a request specifically for “verification in lieu of a certified copy” and was governed by HRS 338-14.3. The only part of that which Onaka’s response actually did was to verify the existence of a record. Nothing else from that verification form was done.
In addition to that, Bennett asked them to verify that some specific items were on the birth record. That WAS responded to.
Do you recognize the difference between the form request and the ADDITIONAL request? The form is the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” that HRS 338-14.3 refers to. The ADDITIONAL request is for items specifically FROM THE RECORD - which WOULD be verification of the legal facts if that record was legally valid, but nowhere does Bennett state that the record must be legally valid and nowhere does Onaka state that the record IS legally valid. Without knowing that the record is legally valid, all this tells us is that those are the claims on the record - NOT that those claims are legally valid.
And as Mike Zullo points out in a WND article linked by somebody else, the initials that initialed the certifying statement by Onaka are not Onaka’s so Onaka has wiggle room to say that he didn’t even personally see or sign this - just some lower-level staffer. Legal rear-covering that renders the document legally useless. Some unidentified staffer is the only person who claims to have actually seen and stamped this “verification”; Onaka DIDN’T put his personal neck on the line.
The above two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other.
According to HRS 338-14.3 (a) & (b), the act of verifying the existence of a record is legal affirmation that the facts as stated on the request form by the applicant are what is on file and is legal certification that the events did occur.
You do not seem to understand that very basic legal fact.