Birth Certificate Number Must Be Disclosed

Birth Certificate Number Must Be Disclosed

 

 

Once information from a government record has been disclosed to the public, the issue of a person’s right to privacy is moot. The information is no longer private, and there is no legal reason to withhold the document containing that information. There is a consistent history showing this legal principle.

 

For instance, OIP Opinion letter 06-07 says (p. 4) that “Second, a matter no longer affects the privacy of the individual where it has been made public or has been published. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 94-01 at 7 (citing in Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. Mm, 69 Haw. 449, 746 P.2d 79 (1987)); Op. Att’y Gen. No. $649 (1986).

 

And following that legal principle, OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 states that, “―OIP further notes that, pursuant to statute, DOH itself discloses certain information in the vital records it maintains, and, therefore, individuals would not have a significant privacy interest in that information.”

 

Using the same principle, Opinion Letter 90-04 (page 6 ) points out that when the Hawaii legislature passed The Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) to replace the existing “Sunshine Law”, they

Intended to “grandfather in” records that had already been available to the public:

 

Additionally, although the Legislature created several exceptions to mandatory public access to government records in section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, it was “not the intent of the Legislature that this section be used to close currently available records, even though these records might fit within one of the categories in this section.” S. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J. 689, 690 (1988).

 

 

 

This important point is also noted in a publication using the State of Hawaii web address at http://www.state.hi.us/lrb/par/pub/foi.pdf, which says on page 17 that ” “These exemptions, however, are not to be used to close records that were available to the public before mid-1988, the Legislature indicated (12)” The footnote cites the legislative committee meeting.

 

So records/information that were already available to the public before UIPA was passed are grandfathered in as open to the public. And there can be no privacy interest for information that has already been disclosed to the public or published.

 

And birth certificate numbers were available to the public before UIPA was passed. According to p. 11 of OIP Opinion Letter 90-23 (written in 1990) HRS 338-18 included:

“(d) Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”

 

If you look at HRS 338-18 now, it says there were revisions in 1949, 1955, 1959, 1967, 1977, 1991, 1997, and 2001. So what was cited in the 1990 OIP Letter had been in effect since at least 1977. That means that the date and file number for vital events were records that were available to the general public ACCORDING TO STATUTE before UIPA went into effect in 1988.

 

The UIPA exemptions from disclosure do not apply to those records. They are authorized for release by statutes in existence before UIPA and thus are STILL authorized for release.

And UIPA requires that any records which MAY be released MUST be released. HRS 92F-12(b)(2) says: “(b) Any provision to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall also disclose:…    (2) Government records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access”.

So the DOH has the authority to release the birth certificate numbers and dates for certificates issued before 1988, and UIPA requires them to release whatever they are authorized by state law to release.

 

 

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. ksdb
    Posted February 12, 2010 at 11:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent bit of research. I think this is a case of Occam’s Razor where the simplest answer is the best answer: The certificate number shown on the Fact Check certificate does not belong to Obama and the DOH is therefore refusing to release anything that would show who it really belongs to, thus protecting Obama from being exposed as a fraud. Of course, they might claim they are actually trying to protect the privacy of the person who the certificate number really belongs to??

    • Posted February 13, 2010 at 2:48 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’m wondering if the amendment was an addition in order to complete the birth certificate. If the original birth certificate doesn’t have all the required items on it the DOH is not allowed to print even a COLB.

      And it didn’t make sense to me that Obama would have used somebody else’s COLB to forge the information he wanted to appear, if he could have simply used his own, complete with seal and registrar’s signature.

      • ksdb
        Posted February 13, 2010 at 4:41 am | Permalink

        I didn’t say Obama used someone else’s COLB to create the forgery, just the certificate number. The Fact Check photographs with the unredacted certificate number didn’t show up until about a week after Okubo said the state couldn’t or wouldn’t release the original certificate and that the certificate number was not sensitive. IOW, they waited until it was safe to make up a random number. IIRC, Obama had just been to Hawaii right before that time. Makes me wonder if he didn’t get a copy of a real birth certificate or the die for impressing the state seal so they could create a more authentic looking hard copy of the forgery.

        If the state did release the index data for the Fact Check number, it might reveal that the number belong to someone born after the Nordyke twins, but definitely not to Obama.

  2. Posted February 13, 2010 at 12:36 am | Permalink | Reply

    The question then is why he used someone else’s birth certificate number if he has his own. Especially since either the date of filing or the registration number had to have been changed. Unless the DOH is lying about what the word “Filed” means, and it actually means the documents arrived at the DOH office that day.

    Okubo’s e-mail implied that the day they receive the BC in their office is the same day they give it a file number, so they just combined the whole thing into the phrase, “Date filed by registrar”.

    But the Administrative Rules and the statutes refer to birth certificates that are submitted but not accepted. And the DOH’s request form for BC’s has a “For Office Use Only” portion which includes “Pending”. The rules use “accepted by state registrar” and “given a file number” interchangeably. So the possibility exists that a BC could be in the office (thus qualifying for “filed” according to the definition in their Rules of Practice & Procedure) but not be given a number because it wasn’t complete.

    So it could be that Obama doesn’t have a certificate number. That would explain why he would use somebody else’s. It doesn’t explain why he would change the date filed, unless he thought that it being filed on Aug 11 (the probable date that was originally associated with that certificate number) might seem a bit late. Which would be really ironic, since Aug 11 is the precise date someone born in the evening of Aug 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital SHOULD have been filed.

    Ah. My mind is mush. Time for a break. What we do know is that nothing adds up. The possibilities for what could have happened are endless when any fraud, forgery, or lie is a possibility on the part of both Obama and the DOH. That’s why this needs to be investigated. We have no proof of exactly WHAT fraud was perpetrated, but we’ve got irrefutable evidence that a fraud WAS perpetrated. In America, that should prompt a law enforcement investigation.

  3. ksdb
    Posted February 13, 2010 at 4:56 am | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t think Obama changed the date filed. For one thing, I think we’re overanalyzing what the term means compared to date accepted. “Date Filed’ is part of the new national standard, as of 2003, and simply replaced the phrase, “Date accepted.” The date on the COLB makes sense. If Obama’s birth had been registered the same day as the Nordyke twins, his announcement wouldn’t have appeared in the newspaper until the following Wednesday instead of Sunday. Aug. 8 was a Tuesday, so it was in plenty of time to get turned in before the Sunday, Aug. 13 paper, while the Nordyke twins, being filed on the 11th, didn’t get published until Aug. 16.

    The certificate number might be legitimate, even for being out of sequence. Otherwise, maybe the birth was filed as unattended and didn’t receive a certificate number without supplementary evidence, but was still sufficient to have the birth listed in the newspapers with other completed birth registrations. Maybe evidence was turned in Friday, after the Nordyke twins had been issued a number.

    The other possibility is that the COLB was forged from a contemporary Hawaiian COLB, not Obama’s nor anyone born in 1961, so the forgers didn’t have a certificate number available for the original jpg. They assumed they could get away with simply redacting the area where the number goes and later had to make up a number to go with Fact Checks photos.

    As you say, there are too many questions and too many possibilities. At this point, it’s pretty obvious the DOH is helping Obama to hide something.

    • Posted February 13, 2010 at 5:38 am | Permalink | Reply

      At this point I wouldn’t make any conclusions based on when the announcements showed up in the papers. That’s about all I can say about that right now.

      The rules as of 1962 – which may have simply codified what was already in the Territorial rules – said local registrars were to collect certificates for a week and then transmit them to the state DOH office. Kapiolani seems to have delivered their birth certificates to the DOH on Fridays. Obama was born Friday evening and the Nordykes Saturday. Both should have gone to the DOH the following Friday – Aug 11th. Obama’s showing up at the DOH on the 8th doesn’t fit the protocols. His showing up 3 days before the big pile arrived on Friday makes it doubly fishy that his would have received a later number than the Nordykes.

      Also, regarding there being several clerks applying numbers as they process certificates, that would make it really difficult to keep track of who used what number. The more efficient way would definitely have been to have a pile of acceptable certificates and have somebody with a numeric stamp who stamped the first, moved the stamp to the next number and marked the next cert, and so on. The indexing could happen afterwards by several clerks, but to keep track of what numbers were used or not used would be much more difficult if it wasn’t one person stamping all of them consecutively.

      The issue of index data is also up in the air. The DOH has a Hawaiian Birth Index, Delayed Birth Index, Pending Birth Index, etc., according to the “For Office Use Only” portion of their birth certificate request form. When they give “index data” they refuse to say which index the data is from. Since they’ve got an index for a “Pending” file it seems like they could give index data for something in that file and nobody could tell that the BC wasn’t complete. The index data as it is given now doesn’t reveal the status of the certificate.

      I believe that’s why the rules don’t just allow for index data to be released to the public, but for the actual non-certified abbreviated birth certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. If one couldn’t be released it would reveal that the birth certificate was incomplete. And if it was complete enough for the abbreviated copy to be released that copy would note any other anomalies on it, such as amendments or a delayed filing. The rules provide for the STATUS of the certificate to be revealed. But the DOH claims that the status is information on the certificate and forbidden to be disclosed – even though the rules expressly authorize the disclosure.

      • ksdb
        Posted February 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

        I used to work in a state office which had pre-numbered purchase order forms. It was pre-printed and when you needed to use one, you just filled it out. I could see birth certificate forms being similar. If such a stack of forms was on hand in the hospital, it’s possible they could be distributed out of sequence. I don’t think it’s likely, just that it’s a possibility.

        As for the index data, it seems like there would still be some sort of a master list, rather than a bunch of separate index files, especially when it can be coded in a master database. Otherwise, personnel would have to do a lot of needless hunting through separate indices. But, even if it is in separate index files, there’s no indication of a restriction on releasing data from different types of files.

        BTW, I saw you made Dr. Conspiracy’s Web site. I think he’s probably a paid hack who’s trying to discredit anyone who questions Obama. I posted at his site when the Nordyke birth announcement was found. When I started proving most of his claims wrong, he began moderating all my posts. Beware, because there are a bunch of Obamabots there who like to call names and try to insult and intimidate anyone who challenges the still undocumented Obama nativity story.

      • Posted February 13, 2010 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

        The responses the Obots give speak for themselves. One said it’s none of my business if I’m not from Hawaii. Well… how can you argue with logic like that? lol.

  4. Sheila Nauert
    Posted May 11, 2010 at 3:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion,

    Your postings simply make no sense, sweetheart. Because the number on Obama’s COLB is not perfectly in order with the Nordyke twins, that means to you that the COLB is a forgery? That’s pretty silly, isn’t it?

    Boy, if life were that perfect . . .

    Sheila

    • Posted May 11, 2010 at 3:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      You tell me how those numbers happened, 3 days apart. Why was Obama’s certificate given a number 3 days earlier and that number was still 2 later than the Nordykes’?

      And then tell me why the Factcheck COLB doesn’t have note of the amendment that the HDOH says Obama made, as required by law and HDOH rules.

      I’d like to see an episode of CSI where the forensic data is examined and the discrepancies prove the case…. and then somebody says, “But darling, none of these clues make any difference because life isn’t perfect and stuff happens….”

      lol

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: