Replies

HRS 338-13 say that certified copies SHALL be issued in compliance with HRS 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18

HRS 338-18 forbids disclosures except as allowed by the rules.

Chapter 11-1-2 “Rules of Practice and Procedure” specifically state that the HDOH seal is to be used on certificates. And “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b (the current HDOH Administrative Rules) specifically states that the raised department seal must be stamped close to the certifying statement by the registrar.

So yes, there are Hawaii laws and rules that say there must be a raised seal.

Furthermore, the US Code says that the acts and records of a state are to be authenticated by a raised seal - which, if present, means the document must be given “full faith and credit” by other states.

I explain this in the post at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/long-form-forgery-for-dummies/ .

If a certifying letter was all a person had to have, they could come up with any false information they wanted, paste it into a digital file so it looks like a birth certificate, and then claim that the letter certifies this other page. Unless the certification is on the exact page there is no way to know WHICH page of information the HDOH is actually certifying.

Sort of like what Obama did. The only thing claiming that the document Obama showed the public is what actually came from the HDOH... is Barack Obama himself. We have no way of knowing whether that’s the same document as the HDOH sent him.

And given the records manipulation of the HDOH, we wouldn’t know that what’s on the page is actually what is in the HDOH office either, even if the HDOH claimed it was.

So, quite entertaining. BTW, when it's a form versus a rule, the form wins regarding data, but is secondary to the rule with respect to legal references. When it's a rule versus a law, the law wins every time ~ which means you get judicial decisions that seem to affect only the law but otherwise affect the rule.

How this works ~ Supreme Court made abortion legal ~ in the sense that no court decision that punished you would ever be upheld by the USSC. So USPS had a rule regarding abortificants and whether or not they could be kept out of the mail. Obviously that rule might have something to do with the USSC ruling on abortion, but it wasn't taken out. That's because it had its OWN law backing it up and the various USSC decisions had no impact on that particular law.

A million feminist harpies descended on USPS trying to get it changed. They were all turned away.

Here we have a BOH "rule" that appears on the face of things to be inconsistent with the way LFBCs are produced in Hawaii these days ~ PLUS ~ we have another rule that interposes the requirement for a "seal" in between the Constitutional clause regarding full faith and credit (with no reference to a seal) and that document.

I suspect Obama and the BOH "win" in court on that one.

Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree, just thought you'd like to know.

There was a time "seals" were useful because they were rather difficult to reproduce ~ wasn't just that they were lending some magical character to the document that made it "real" ~ the concern was more with counterfeiting.