In any event, anything the HDOH would have following an adoption or unadoption would be on a PIECE OF PAPER. When scanned it would not have parts that could be moved around. What Obama posted was not from any one piece of paper and could thus not be what Fuddy sent. For her to hide that fact from the public is misprision of fraud. There’s just no way to get around that.
I have no doubts they would CLAIM they had legal reasons. Janice Okubo, for instance, has already claimed that the law PROHIBITS their office from reporting known forgeries to law enforcement. But the forgery and misprision laws REQUIRE that crimes be reported. As far as I know the only people who are exempt are attorneys for whom the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.
The law in question regarding BC’s concerning adoption is HRS 338-20, at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
It says:
§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.
(b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.
(c) Any certified copy of final decree of adoption, or abstract thereof, of persons born in the State, rendered by courts of other states and territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or courts of a foreign country, shall be considered properly certified when attested by the clerk of the court in which it was rendered with the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding judge, chancellor, or magistrate that the attestation is in due form.
(d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence as it deems necessary to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.
(e) The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order setting aside a decree of adoption, the department shall restore the original certificate to its original place in the files. [L 1949, c 327, §24; RL 1955, §57-23; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-20; am L 1978, c 50, §1; am L 1979, c 203, §2; am L 1980, c 153, §6 and c 232, §18; am L 1988, c 274, §2; am L 1990, c 338, §2]
Exactly my point. They are not ALLOWED to divulge any activity regarding the birth certificate of adopted children, or those who have had their adoptions modified or annulled. They will cheerfully follow whatever the Judge orders them to do.
§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.
And there is the Wiggle room right there. As "approved by the Department" Who decides what's approved? The Director, no doubt. That means they have discretionary ability. Further wiggle room is that statement "as fixed or changed by the decree" which pretty much means anything a lawyer can get a judge to agree to, which is exactly what I said before.
It is my belief that both the DOH Director, AND a Friendly Judge, will bend over backwards interpreting the rules in whatever manner is necessary to allow Obama's attorney to get what he wants from them, including a proof copy of their initial work.