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.
That’s the current computerized index apparently. The HDOH said they could give me a copy of just 1961 births for $100. But they’re also supposed to have the original hand-written index pages, which is what I requested. They say it doesn’t exist.
BTW, I’ve been meaning to tell you that my 7th-grade son and I were reading a summary of Obama’s first year on your site and were rolling on the floor laughing. It was a much-needed reprieve from doing battle with the assignments handed out by liberal teachers.
We got off the floor, wiped the tears from our eyes, and then my son said, “Mom, this is sort of like heaven to me, talking about this stuff and laughing with you.”
Thanks for giving us that opportunity.
I was talking about what you quoted.
I’d think those items which would jeopardize the security would be redacted. They would certainly qualify to be redacted.
Okubo claimed just the certificate number would compromise their system. I guess their system is compromised then, because lots of people have posted their certificates with the numbers showing - including the Nordyke twins.
Bummer to have a system so fragile that you can’t even use it without jeopardizing the whole thing (according to Okubo).
Buckeye, your comments are nonsense. Butterdezillion posted a retention schedule that specifies what records (not data) are supposed to be retained, either as archived hard copies of the original indexes (similar to a ledger) or microfilmed copies of those indexes. Your experience as a ‘software developer’ is irrelevant and inapplicable.
Those refer to certificates of Hawaiian birth, not the general birth index.
Okubo didn’t say the certificate would compromise the system ... she said somebody could ‘potentially’ break into the system if they had the number. I put this is in the same category of Okubo’s expertise as verifying Obama’s birth certificate because it looks like her own. IOW, she doesn’t know.
I wondered about this myself, thanks for the info!
“There is one index record for that alleged event, regardless of how the particular claims about that event morph over time.”
OIP Opinion Letter 90-22, found at http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2090-22.pdf , basically says that a public record can’t be denied simply because it’s in electronic form. If records of processing are public records, then they must be made available to the public even if it is stored as electronic data.
Buckeye and I have been on a tangent concerning the transaction log I requested and which the HDOH said they didn’t have to disclose because it would “frustrate a legitimate government purpose”.
Sounds like Buckeye is saying it’s more like, “It would require a report to be compiled from multiple sources, which UIPA doesn’t require an agency to do.”
She seems a bit like Obama in the “police acted stupidly” incident. She doesn’t know anything but instinctively and spontaneously makes up stories to cover her cronies.
You’d think these people would learn you can’t just shoot off your mouth with whatever you want to say when you’re the communications arm of a government agency. You have to at least attempt to be truthful.
At least in the country I know and love. Apparently it’s different in the USSA.
The Certificate of Hawaii Birth was issued from 1911 to 1972 for those who wished to have a document proving that they were born in Hawaii. It was a way to apply for a document for those who were born a year before the request was made and who did not have a standard birth certificate, presumably because they were born at home, not in a hospital.If anything, the fact that Obama's name is not in that index list offers some proof that Obama wasn't born at home and that his grandmother didn't apply for a "late" birth certificate.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Now if you were the Communications Director for the HDOH we’d be all set! lol.
I can take no for an answer. I just don’t like a bunch of BS. It’s a waste of precious time.
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up :-)
Not necessarily, because he could still have gotten a late birth certificate if he filed for one after the COHB program was ended. And as long as some kind of birth claim was submitted within the first year after birth he would not have needed a COHB. If it was filed after the first 3 months of life it would be a delayed birth certificate or a standard certificate that was marked as late.
See, this is where the terminology is confusing, because there’s a Hawaii birth certificate and there’s a certificate of Hawaiian birth, and they’re totally different things. The COHB has different numbering, requires a photo and description of physical identifiers, and is acquired through filing affidavits.
The delayed birth certificate is filed through a totally different application than a standard birth certificate, although a BC filed on a standard form but not completed until 3 months or more after birth would also be called a “delayed birth certificate”, according to 1961 terminology. By current terminology it would be a “late birth certificate”. At one point any delayed birth certificate was also called a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, even though the forms are completely different.
So it’s all screwy. The term used today says practically nothing about what form is actually on record. There’s way too much wiggle room and ambiguity about which law or definition applies.
If you ever decide to become a software developer or a DBA, you’ll be hell on wheels. Your attention to detail and persistence is a perfect fit for geek-dom. Management would consider your name a curse word but the end users would love you. :)
I’ll take your word for it on this one.
My kids think I already am hell on wheels.
If you ever saw me rollerskate you’d agree. lol.
Yea, I do know. And when you look at the responses given by Hawaiian officials to various people together, its obvious that Obama has an Amended birth certificate, so most likely the one pictured IS a fraud. BUT... you cannot tell if a document is real of fake by looking at a picture of it. So when asked if the picture was authentic, of course they have to respond that they can tell. They can’t verify a picture.
Its only through FOIA requests and replies that one can deduce that the one pictured doesn’t have the word “Amended” on it anywhere. So yea, I am aware of all that. I just am not gonna buy that someone like oh say... Polarik can tell if a document is real or fake by looking at a picture of it. All that can be said is the digital image may be doctored, but that still never even touches the actual document itself.
I think its all irrelevant anyway.
The cretin is British, having two citizenships means you cannot ever be a Natural Born Citizen. It doesn’t matter where he was born, he couldn’t ever have gotten the status.
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.