Yeah and that statement is not true and you know it. so why did she misstate the facts? Hiding something is the most obvious reason. Care to lose another $200 donation to FR? You really have no shame and do a disservice to your fellow Obots we all know you deceive and lie and have no credibility. Good job schmuck.
It’s the same certified copy that everybody receives when they request a birth certificate.”—
Janice Okubo, Director of Communications, Hawaii Department of Health in an interview in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten conducted on June 6, 2009.
Yeah and that statement is not true and you know it. so why did she misstate the facts? Hiding something is the most obvious reason. Care to lose another $200 donation to FR? You really have no shame and do a disservice to your fellow Obots we all know you deceive and lie and have no credibility. Good job schmuck.
“Note: Based on initial research I had started this posting a few days ago, when I was reasonably certain that Danae had not made a very compelling case and without further evidence, her document had to be rejected. Then I remembered that I should not post things in haste and allow some time to further research the issues. Now I have come to the conclusion that, unless data are found to the contrary, I have to take Danae’s account as likely factual. I will be adding information and links over the next few days. Given the level of controversy and my early comments, I find it important to provide an update even before I have finalized my full posting.
Update: On FR, a third party confirms:
OK, jesting aside. It’s pretty obvious to me that she got it from Hawaii. On the back side of the copy of her long form there is a readable transfer of ink from the receipt forming a mirror image of where they had been in contact.
That settles it for me… Too much detail
On the FreeRepublic a person named Danae claims to have received a long form Certificate of Live Birth from the Department of Health of Hawaii and she presents a picture of the document as well as of the receipt.
The document is in black and white and does not show any evidence of security paper, a seal or a signature/date stamp. I find it hard to believe that the DOH would send out such a document without printing it on security paper, as this would invite abuse.
And thus I started my posting two days ago…
And then there were some warning signs that I may be jumping to conclusions. For instance the 2 boxes with the parents’ race at the bottom, why would she add such information? Or the horizontal fold line, not found on the ‘original’.
Then several things came together. Several states allow anyone access to non-certified data, showing, as Dr C had pointed out to me, how some States deliver birth data in a non-certified format.
The next step was to look at Chapter 117 of HAR 11 (Hawaiian Administrative Rules) which outlines that certain information can be made available to anyone in a non-certified manner. It referred to Section 2.2 to outline the limitations.
Then Danae posted, as I had encouraged her, iPhone pictures of the relevant documents, which further showed credibility to her story.
It’s too early to determine if the document shown was indeed the one sent to her, but by any standard, her story cannot be rejected as false. On the contrary.
I also remembered some comments by Butterdezilion who had asked to get access to a non-certified copy of the birth data and the DOH of Hawaii pointed her to the section 2.2 restrictions as to why she was not entitled to such data.
State law prohibits our agency from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. Therefore, we cannot send you a non-certified, abbrevated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate, with date of birth and ethnicity redacted. Please refer back to the entire text of “Public Health Regulations” 8b, adopeted on Feb 23, 1978, for a complete explanation. Sec 2.5 B(2) refers to Sec. 2.2 which further explains how information is made available.
and some statements from Mr Itamura
I’ve had less than terrific results with Mr Itamura. I asked for an investigation into 8 specific, listed instances of potential illegal or criminal behavior on the part of the HDOH and OIP. He ignored everything except the LEAST ethically or criminally-significant issue: the HDOH’s refusal to disclose a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate, which he concluded was a “reasonable” response, even though for an inaccurate reason, because I could always appeal the accuracy of their claims to the OIP. Which I did, and the OIP said they let the HDOH decide what the laws mean. The whole thing is just a big racket, as far as I can tell
So it appears that the State of Hawaii releases data in three different instances
1. Under HRS 338-18 as certified data to applicants who have an immediate interest
2. Under HRS 338-18, amended in 1982, as a letter of verification of data known to the applicant and requested by the applicant.
3. As non verified data, limited by Section 2.2 which as far as I have been able to determine limits data to index data only to anyone, and to those who are found to have sufficient interest also full data.
Would anyone accept President Obama submitting a non-verified long form? What if it were to show no entry for the Hospital and no signature from a doctor? What if it did?”