Replies

Bennett asked them to verify that what Obama posted is a “true and accurate representation of the original record” but the HDOH wouldn’t verify that; they downgraded it to this. How could the information on Obama’s posted BC match the information on the original record and STILL not be a “true and accurate representation of the original record”?

If the original record has more than is on what Obama posted. All the items that were supposed to be there were on what Obama posted so what’s extra on the original isn’t items. It’s LATE and ALTERED stamps, and the notation of the evidence/affidavits filed to support the late and amended filing.

Late and amended BC’s are not legally valid, and Onaka’s refusal to verify the items from the request form that Bennett filled out showed that the BC is not legally valid. Here’s what I posted on my blog explaining this:

Bennett told TheCipher (a Freeper) he DID ask for the birth date – which was only on the request form, so he must not have withdrawn the form request. If that’s the case, then this verification is the official response to that form.

The “verification” references HRS 338-14.3 and calls itself a “verification of birth”. HRS 338-14.3 says, in part:

“(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.”

By responding at all the HDOH acknowledged Bennett’s eligibility to receive a verification. By referencing HRS 338-14.3 they are acknowledging that what they disclose is governed by that. They are REQUIRED to verify the existence of a certificate, and they did that. They did not claim that the place of birth was Honolulu, HI – only that the birth certificate “indicates” (not verifies) a Honolulu, HI birth.

The procedure for verifying the facts of birth is that the person applying for a verification gives the facts in question and the HDOH repeats back to them anything that they got right and verifies that it is correct. Anything they don’t verify as correct is not correct – either because there is something else in that field on the birth record, or because the facts about the birth cannot be certified as accurate (because the certificate is not legally valid).

When filling out that form, Bennett presumably gave the HDOH the following guesses for facts:

Gender: male
Date of birth: Aug 4, 1961
City and island of birth: Honolulu, HI/ Oahu
Father’s name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mother’s name: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama

The HDOH did not verify any of those facts, so they are either not what is claimed on the BC or the BC they’re on is not a legally valid record.

But the HDOH verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record. So that can’t be the reason.

That leaves a legally non-valid record as the only reason for their refusal to verify those “facts of birth”.

This “verification” – if it legally verifies anything, given the initials by the certification on it – actually verifies that Obama’s birth record is not legally valid.

That being the case, the other items to be verified “from the record” are clearly being verified only as being ON that record – not being the true facts of his birth. If they couldn’t verify the true date and place of birth or parents’ names because the record was legally invalid, then they can’t verify ANYTHING from that BC as being true. All they can verify is what is on it, not that what is on it is true. Which is actually what is implied in the certifying statement.

Again – if the HDOH has verified anything with this “verification”, it is that Obama’s birth record is legally non-valid.