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.
The form “approved by the department” is referring to a form for a certified abstract of an adoption decree. It has nothing to do with a birth certificate. It only has to do with how the HDOH knows they are authorized to create a supplemental BC.
And you still don’t seem to grasp the fact that anything the HDOH would create after an adoption would be on a genuine piece of paper. Obama’s forgery was not created by scanning a complete certified copy of ANYTHING. What was posted online did NOT come from the HDOH. Period. The HDOH would not have to reveal anything about adoption whatsoever - or reveal anything that is on Obama’s BC either, for that matter - in order to say, “What was posted on the White House website was not a scan of the certified copy we sent him.”
And unless Fuddy was the attorney for Obama there was no attorney-client privilege to shield her from the responsibility to set the record straight AT LEAST based on the Federal General False Statement Act, if not also federal and state misprision laws.
You’re desperately trying to get adoption to be able to explain the problems, but as you’ve acknowledged yourself from the fact that your own supplemental BC doesn’t act like Obama’s scan, adoption cannot explain the fact of this forgery nor the HDOH’s refusal to clarify that what Obama posted was not what they have in their office for him.
If the HDOH is so interested in following the laws, as you seem so ready to believe of them - then why will they not even allow Duncan Sunahara to see his sister’s original birth certificate - as REQUIRED by both HRS 338-18 and UIPA? What is your explanation for that?
I have dealt with these people. I could talk until your ears can’t listen any more regarding the laws and rules they have broken with reckless abandon. To believe they are acting lawfully and honestly because of an adoption - when it’s been pointed out repeatedly that adoption cannot explain what is observed, and in spite of the lawlessness they’ve already been caught in - makes no sense to me. Why are you clinging to faith in them, when they’ve already shown such bad faith?
Just as an example, you mention that the HDOH can’t disclose anything about adoptions. Then why did they disclose on their 1960-64 birth index the BIRTH names for Norman and Nathan Asing, when they had both been adopted, their legally-valid BC’s are under different names, and the BC’s having those birth names are supposed to be sealed so that the public can have no knowledge about the adoptions? That’s an example where the HDOH has been caught acting in bad faith/illegally in the case of 2 adoptions. Actually caught manipulating what they call an official record (the birth index).
If they would illegally do that, what WOULDN’T they illegally do?