Posted on 05/18/2010 8:41:44 AM PDT by butterdezillion
The Hawaii Department of Health claims in official communications that the original birth index and index of foreign births (which are both required to be retained permanently) don't exist.
When vital records were converted to their current electronic format and the computer itself allowed sorting and locating, the HDOH submitted the old, original paper indices (VR-1)to the comptroller for a determination of what should happen to them. The comptroller agreed that those indices should be retained permanently, as originals and/or as security and search microfilms.
The HDOH at the same time made a separate request for the certificates themselves (VR-2)to be analyzed and it was decided that they, too, should be kept as originals and microfilm security and search copies authorized.
So there were 2 different requests for 2 different kinds of documents which were in physical form, able to be microfilmed.
The Hawaii State Archivist says that microfilm copies were not requested for the indices and the Vital Statistics Office should have the originals as required in the retention schedule.
I asked the HDOH for their documentation regarding the destruction of these documents. (Every department is required to keep detailed records of what documents they have destroyed, showing that they followed the retention schedule.) The deadline for them to respond is past and they have not provided those records.
The illegal destruction of permanent records SHOULD prompt an investigation in Hawaii. We will see what the Ombudsman does with this. (Don't hold your breath)
The documentation for all this is on a new post at my blog, which I will link to in the 2nd comment.
Amen!
Lord, save this jewel given us by
the blood and sacrifice of our brave
and wise Founders.
I don’t know what the law required in 1961 for a handwritten birth index, but the law in Hawaii now requires the birth index to include the child’s name, gender, and date of birth.
As a rule, important information in a database is never deleted or changed. New or updated information is reflected by additional records.
So, they are going to send you a copy of your long form and NOT the short one? The real deal like what we see online from the Nordyke twins? That would prove that they lied (we knew that already) when they said that anytime someone asks for their b/c now days, they are sent the short form. That never made any sense because they can’t deny you access to your own long form.
I find it interesting that most of those who were arrested were over 50 years old and no one was young enough to be considered a dumb kid. They knew the rules, yet they went after it anyway. That says something. This article says they actually got the records but in previous news I seen they only attempted to get in. Obviously, Big Brother was watching which means “they” also went in and got the paper record. We’ve heard of specific people taking “vacations” to Kenya and going to Indonesia with booty to get records for his “archives” so just how much has the taxpayer been charged for 50 years (more if you include the Dunhams) of mopping up?
Supposedly this link was updated an hour ago even though it doesn’t say so on the page.
http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2010/05/12/724151/9-indicted-on-charges-of-accessing.html
I could write in a book that I was Mickey Mouse’s offspring and claim it on national tv, but if there were a question in the matter wouldn’t the court demand the actual long form b/c to prove my claim?
Of course there are but I got told a while back that wasn't the case so without actually paying a visit to them myself I try to leave it open ended.
Yes. I have my short form. I am making a specific request for a specific purpose, and it will have to be authorized so that I can get it. But yes, it will be sent to me.
I forgot to mention, when the request is made, most of the time the short form suffices. It doesn’t require anything other than a few mouse clicks. Getting the long form means having to get up out of the chair and going to the records room LOL Thats why most states use that method now a days, its faster, easier, and takes less time and manpower.
Can not agree with you enough, I’m there where you are disputing some obnoxious FINOs!!!
Can not agree with you enough, I’m there where you are disputing some obnoxious FINOs!!!
Yeah, and it takes less time, mouse clicks, and manpower for them to answer peoples’ questions the first time rather than have them re-submit the same questions and then have to waste taxpayers’ money and time to pass vexatious requester bills. But, I’m preachin’ to the choir, huh.
The DOH rules required that if an amendment was made it be crossed out on the original BC with the amendment written in and a date. Any birth certificate printed out (either a long-form reproduction or an abbreviated/COLB) had to have a note stating the date that the amendment was made.
So the record of amendments made was on the actual BC itself, with the computer keeping track of the changes via notes to be printed up in the white space below the form data. So, for instance, if on 5-19-62 they changed the birth date from 1-2-61 to 3-8-61 the date field would simply show 3-8-61, but there would be a separate field which would say, “5-19-62 Date of birth changed from 1-2-61 to 3-8-61.”
The changes aren’t kept track of by a computer code but by printable text on the printed certificate.
But my understanding is that the computer file itself would have embedded records of when it was accessed, as the passport files did - and that those transaction records are public information, as the passport breaches were made public. (The reason for UIPA or FOIA is so people can keep the government accountable for its transactions.)
At first the HDOH denied that those exist, then they said it was confidential, then they said it would cause frustration of a legitimate government function if that transaction record was revealed. They won’t say what legitimate function would be frustrated.
Also, just one correction - the current index is only required to say the type of event (birth, death, marriage, divorce), the gender, and the registrant’s name. Before UIPA was passed the certificate number and the date of the event were also required to be public information. UIPA was not intended to close access to what was already designated as a public record before UIPA was passed.
You would think so, but don't forget that you have a number of "Fifth Column" FReepers, AKA FINOs, who think otherwise posting here trying to persuade you to keep their dear fraud leader in office at any cost by ridiculing you!!!
I’m glad you understood and took it right. I’m never sure whether what I type sounds at all like I would say it if I was talking.
I’m sad to hear about your Dad. We lost my brother-in-law to brain cancer last fall. My prayers are with you and your family.
And it sounds like your plate is very full.
I think we’ll all be glad when we can just go back to “life in the Shire”. I’m tired of fighting orcs who are trying to destroy everything I love. I’d like to just hold my kids, mow my lawn, and bake cookies (without the nutrition police throwing me in jail for it).
I hope and pray we can get back to that kind of existence someday. Unless and until the entire country puts down their cookie dough long enough to hunt orcs together, it ain’t gonna happen though.
But my understanding is that the computer file itself would have embedded records of when it was accessed,
I don't mean to be rude, butterdezillion, but those comments are completely and totally inconsistent with basic software and database design. I've been a computer programmer, software designer, and systems and database administrator for 18 years.
We don't embed records within records to track access to records. Access information is stored separately from the actual records being accessed.
And for any amendments to a record, there is usually another separate record (in another table) that details the amendments made to the original record. The resulting composit data may be printed on one sheet of paper, but it most certainly is not stored all in one record. That would be a most inefficient method of information management since the majority of records are not amended.
composit = composite
It would not be his personal knowledge, it would be his mother's, or his grandmother's. The birth certificate he saw may have been as fraudulent as the CoLB he put on line. We don't know, and can't possibly even have a real clue until we see the original.
My theory, not very seriously taken, but possible, is that the reason he's fighting providing the BC, or even a certified paper copy of the CoLB to any court is that it would constitute legal proof of who his father was.
Around 10 years ago, I read that states, and other record keepers, were looking at storing the digital images of the originals, rather than just a subset of the original information. Guess storage wasn't that cheap after all. Too bad, if they had switched to digital scans of the originals, they'd have no excuse for not providing one now.
A subtle difference, but one which prevents other countries from controlling who can or cannot be US President.
I was referring to the dual citizenship of the affirmative action sonofabitch soiling the Oval Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.