Right. There were state statistics that the HDOH was responsible to compile. Incidentally, a colleague requested to see those and was told they were not available to the public, IIRC.
The HDOH tried to claim to me that the original birth index (VR-1) that was required to be permanently retained was actually these IBM punchcards that they used for tabulation purposes, and that they were destroyed because they weren’t needed once the records were computerized. IOW, they are claiming that the only record they had of where the actual BC’s were located was IBM punchcards. At least that’s how I remember it. I’ve tried to find that e-mail but my computer has been hit and I’ve had to switch to a different computer so many times that my records are all over the place and that particular e-mail is in a zip file within a DBX file that I can’t either open or unzip.
Regarding BC’s based on affidavits, the inspector general for the HHS issued a report saying that home births or BC’s given on the basis of affidavits are the especially vulnerable spot in our records keeping, because a person can lie about anything in an affidavit.
The HDOH claimed to Lori Starfelt (or at least Starfelt claimed that they did) that if it’s an unattended birth the mother and baby have to be examined by a doctor who then signs the BC. The CDC classified its “unattended births” by those who didn’t have a doctor’s signature, IIRC - so that even if the birth happened outside the hospital with nobody there it would be considered an “attended birth” if it had a doctor’s signature - which the HDOh told Starfelt they had to have. I’m not sure what it means, then, that HI had some unattended births according to the CDC’s 1961 report.
Maybe it means that those BC’s were accepted on the basis of affidavits rather than a doctor’s signature within 30 days (which is what the HDOH rules gave as a timeframe for when BC’s had to be fully completed without being considered “delayed”).
All things considered, it does make my eyebrow go up to realize that former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama affirmed the HDOH’s DENIAL OF ACCESS to Miss Tickly’s request for affidavits filed in support of any birth certificate for Obama. Tsukiyama literally wrote the book on the rules for responding to UIPA requests and knows that if the records don’t exist they have to say so. His affirmation of the denial of access is a strong statement that Obama’s BC (if there is one) relies on affidavits rather than a doctor’s signature on a BC filed within 30 days of the birth.
And that fits right in with Fukino’s statement in an interview that Obama’s birth record is half-typed, half-handwritten. It also fits what Abercrombie said about not being to find anything in the hospitals and about something being “actually written down” that would not convince any skeptics.
If such a thing happened, it would explain why Obama’s people had to forge both a long-form AND THE COLB: even though a COLB wouldn’t give the doctor’s name, the BC# would have an L in front of it (for “late”), and the BC would have to say on its face what affidavits were used to support the claims, and when they were filed. Such a BC is not considered prima facie evidence.
And the key here is that such a BC would only be necessary if neither Ann nor Obama were seen by a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days after birth. Which also fits the scenario of Ann being in Seattle so soon. If she had been in HI anytime in August 1961 (as Abercrombie has claimed)she could have claimed the baby was born at home, had a doctor examine her and the baby within 30 days and sign the BC, and we could have a foreign-born POTUS that nobody could prove otherwise. The mother’s residency needn’t have had anything to do with it.
A poster here on FR is from HI and says he saw people come into Hawaii with their babies and get BC’s in this way. Which leads me to believe that HI must have been very lax with their standards, probably so that they could meet the number of citizens required for statehood (and then later perhaps to get more federal funding). I wish I could remember that person’s handle.
They say that even statistical reports, compiled on the taxpayers’ dime, aren’t available to the public? Figures!
This stuff was regularly published back then. I bet there are copies at the universities in Hawaii.
I seriously doubt that the IBM punchcards were their index. Sometimes, the cards didn’t even have a printed interpretation along the top, which means a person had to decipher the pattern of the holes in order to figure out what the card said!
The punchcards may have been destroyed once the statistical reports were compiled, but there was that handwritten ledger that WAS the index. The punchcards existed to make the statistical reports; they were intended to be read by the computer, not by people. They wouldn’t have been used as an index.
If it’s not the case that his birth records are sealed on account of an adoption, then I think the most likely explanation for what’s being hidden is that the “original vital records” consist of a registration (not yet authenticated) of a birth, based upon an affidavit.
On the other hand, if it was an adoption, then what was created and certified and given to his personal lawyer may have been a copy of his original birth certificate, which is WHY he needed a waiver.
There’s no reason for a waiver unless the records were sealed. We’ve seen other long-form birth certificate copies given recently to Hawaiian-born people, who needed no waiver.
Only a sealed record would require a waiver. They gave his lawyer the copies, but that’s not what was presented to the citizens on the White House website. That was the forgery. But the audit trail of letters between his lawyer and the HDOH gave FALSE “credibility” to the thing posted on the Internet.
I didn’t know about Tsukiyama. Very interesting indeed.