As can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf , the Kansas Objection Board asked the Hawaii Department of Health to verify, among other things, that (emphasis added):
“3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf and reviewed by you on the date of your verification, a copy of which is attached to this request, is identical to the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”
In response the HDOH verified that:
“3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”
I’ve highlighted the words that are different between the request and the response. There are the pronouns that change to reflect the person speaking (“you” becomes “me”; “your verification” becomes “this verification”; “to this request” becomes “with your request”). But beyond that, the HDOH changed 2 things of substance:
1. The source link for the copied BC is different.
2. The words “is identical to” are replaced with “matches”.
I don’t know why the link was changed, but some thoughts come to mind. Because the content of websites can change, the important thing for Onaka to review was the copy showing what specific image the request referred to. That’s the only way we know WHAT information “matched”. By putting a different link, Onaka seems to indicate that he didn’t base his verification on the copy he was given OR the site he was told the copy was taken from. If what he saw when he looked at the site he cited was the same as what is at the link now, the two links have the same content, but we have no way of knowing whether that was the case when he looked at it. Citing a different link puts in another degree of separation because the page COULD HAVE BEEN different at the time Onaka looked at it. And having the different link shows right away that Onaka is not verifying exactly what he was asked to verify; he changed it a little bit, adding that degree of separation. An easily-visible red flag. And that may well be the reason for it.
More importantly, the HDOH did not verify that the information in the White House image is “identical to” the information contained in the original BC for Obama. They instead verified something they were not asked to verify: that the information that exists in the White House image MATCHES the information contained in the original BC.
Why refuse to verify that the information “is identical to”, if it can be verified that the information “matches”? What’s the difference between “is identical to” and “matches”?
If the information is identical, whatever exists in one exists in the other, and whatever doesn’t exist in one doesn’t exist in the other. The one is a “true and accurate representation” of the other. It has everything the other has and lacks everything the other lacks. Obviously, “matches” means something different, or there would be no reason to change the language. Most probably “matches” means that information actually contained in the copy matches what the original has for that – but if there is no information in a field on the copy, no comparison is made.
So Kansas did NOT receive the verification they requested. By refusing to verify what was requested, the HDOH verified the opposite: that the information contained in the copy of the White House BC is NOT “identical to” the information contained in the original record at the HDOH.
And we learned that when Onaka says information “matches” he does NOT mean the information on both documents is identical. Onaka will verify that the information in the copy “matches” even if the copy lacks some of the information from the original.
So we’ve got a series of walk-downs. AZ asked Onaka to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and Onaka would not verify that. KS asked him to verify that the information contained in the White House record “is identical to” the information in the original record, and Onaka wouldn’t verify that. In both instances, Onaka instead verified something he was not asked to verify – that the information from the White House image “matched” the information from the original, a verification that can be used even if the White House image is missing some of the information that’s in the original record.
Which is critical, considering that Item 23 is the only item (other than mother’s mailing address) that was left blank in the White House image.
And Item 23 is where evidence for a late filing or alteration is to be listed – evidence that OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama already disclosed exists. And this item alone would reveal that the record is non-valid, which Onaka has already confirmed through the AZ verification. When MDEC submitted their verification to a court they were careful to explain that “information” only means birth facts – which specifically excludes FILING information. IOW, item 23 (as well as the dates of filing, signature, etc). MDEC was thus careful to say that item 23 was NOT asked about in their verification request. Which sure seems to indicate that they knew item 23 was the sticking point – and that they knew they had a legal responsibility to have recognized that on the basis of already-disclosed records (AZ’s verification from Onaka).