Replies

I think that other threads about people asking Hawaii for index data about Obama highlights that the initial statements Hawaii made about Obama's birth record may have been in relation to its current content.

People wanted to know if the birth record was amended from an original content, and/or whether the current content was based on a birth record witnessed by a physician or attested to by a family member.

I don't want to believe that Hawaii officials would play semantic games like that, i.e., that his record today says... when the true facts are something else. But I also understand the pride that some may feel about a "favorite son" becoming the first president from their state, and then feeling an obligation to the state to not upset that story.

It does make me wonder why even Hawaii officials are trying hard to not be transparent about all the information they have, even going so far as to deem their own transactional data to be "private" data about someone. To me, a person's data about themselves is private, but a person's public dealings with public government departments is not "private."

-PJ

You were saying ...

People wanted to know if the birth record was amended from an original content, and/or whether the current content was based on a birth record witnessed by a physician or attested to by a family member.

Well, I'm sure that the State of Hawaii officials kept getting hammered for requests for information and I'm sure they knew what the issues were, which were at stake here. And so, in regards to your point of what people were asking for, I think the wording of that statement was meant to be "all inclusive" -- so as to cover all possible documentation ...

Note the wording ...

... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health ...

But, as I said, this is a public statement, and not something that goes into court for what they would ask for.

When you talk to the public, you issue public statement, you don't go into court and start a "court case" in order to "address the public".

But, when you have a court case, you don't use "public statements" as proof in court cases -- you supply the official records for what the court asks for.

It's two different venues and two different ways of communicating.