HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, HRS 338-17 and HRS 338-18. These are for birth certificates that are issued one year or more after birth, and for certificates that have been altered, and/or both.
Rather than being a big discovery, this is stupid and bogus.
1. The same statute numbers are probably printed on every COLB.
2. 338.19 is just cited to justify issuing the "certifications" rather than hauling out 50 year old documents every time someone wants a copy of their birth certificate.
3. 338-13(b) just says that certified copies will be considered the same as the original (note that the author omitted this) subject to sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
4. 338-16 says that birth certificates issued one year or more late have to be clearly marked "late" or "altered". Note that Obama's COLB is not so marked and again the author has omitted this important fact.
5. 338-17 applies to "late" or "altered" records but Obama's COLB is not one of these or it would be so marked.
6. 338-18 has to do with who the records may be released to.
Yet the COLB posted on silly putty’s site and the COLB posted on Daily Kos had the number of the certificate re-dacted.
please let me know if i’m making any sense here because if you remember the certificate number was blacked out
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
It doesn't say anything about marking the short form certification (Obamas' COLB) that's issued in lieu of any of the 3 types of certificates that can be on file. I think it's saying it'd be those certificates which would themselves be marked, and probably have a reference to: "Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.". And on a long form certificate, I think the last line on the form is where any such information would be filled in.
Also, note that on Obamas' certification, it's marked as "filed" as opposed to "accepted". Still trying to figure that one out.
Just show us the original long form Birth Certificate.
Then, the drama will vaporize, or.......
Not. 338-19 says that they may issue *copies*, the Certification is not a copy, it's an abstract from the original. 338-16 says that birth certificates issued one year or more late have to be clearly marked "late" or "altered". Note that Obama's COLB is not so marked and again the author has omitted this important fact.
The context makes it clear that by "Birth Certificates" they mean the original Certificate of Live Birth, not the abstract prepared from it.
§338-13 is the one that lets them make the Certification:
338-13 Certified copies.
(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
BTW, this section also indicates that the Department must, upon request, provide a certified *copy* of any such documents, which is different than "the contents of any part thereof", which is what the Certification is, a copy of part of the contents of the original document.