Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America; MWFsFreedom
BC’s were once available to anyone upon request in Hawaii.

Here is a pickable link (opens in new screen)...@www.capitol.hawaii.gov - /hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/

Here is the timeline for - §338-18 Disclosure of records
[L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

So since at least 1949 there have been restrictions in Hawaii on disclosure.

Help me out here with your assertion. What decade were you talking about?

129 posted on 05/23/2012 7:31:52 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]


To: philman_36
Yeppers! They changed the law to accommodate 0bama - back in 1949 - knowing that it would accommodate 0bama who was going to be born a dozen years later in 1961!

The power of this conspiracy is just breath taking!

145 posted on 05/23/2012 10:09:33 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36

Non-certified abbreviated birth certificates are actually still supposed to be discloseable to anybody who asks for them. If you look at HRS 338-18(a) it restricts the HDOH from disclosing information from a vital record except as authorized by HRS 338-18 OR BY HDOH RULES DULY APPROVED.

Although those rules are supposed to be posted on the HDOH website at all times, Fukino hid them until about a year after the 2008 election. It took 3 months of haggling before the HDOH would even tell us WHAT RULES WERE IN EFFECT and then eventually post them as required by law.

One of the reasons I believe she hid them is because it says there that anybody can receive a non-certified copy of an abbreviated certificate (the abstract version, which is the only kind authorized in the rules to be by computer rather than photocopy or microfilm copy.

I’ve got stuff posted about this at my blog. Maybe I can go on my daughter’s computer and find a link. My computer freezes up anytime I go on my own blog. sigh.

The HI Ombudsman’s office - Alfred Itamura, to be exact, with the response cleared through Ombudsman Robyn Matsunaga (IIRC) - let me know that the HDOH was “not unreasonable” for saying they couldn’t disclose the non-certified abbreviated certs I requested, because the rules say those MAY be disclosed/issued rather than saying they SHALL be. But Itamura knows as well as me that UIPA says anything that CAN be disclosed MUST be disclosed. So basically the Ombudsman’s Office agreed that the HDOH CAN disclose those records to anybody who asks - contrary to what the HDOH routinely claims. And UIPA thus REQUIRES them to disclose it upon request.

I’ve got a link to the Administrative Rules on my blog, or you can get to it from the HDOH’s website if you know how to dig for it. Let me know if you’d like to see any of this and I’ll see if I can get to the links on my daughter’s computer.

BTW, those rules went into effect in 1976.


154 posted on 05/23/2012 11:07:22 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson