Corroboration Re: Cert Numbers Assigned

Corroboration that Certificate Numbers were Given by State Registrar


Janna’s birth certificate shows that certificate numbers were given by the Hawaii State Registrar


Janna’s birth certificate  shows she was born on Tuesday, Dec 21, 1971, at Kapiolani Hospital. The certificate was signed by the attending doctor 9 days later, on Dec 29, 1971, and was accepted by both the local and state registrar the day after that – Thursday, Dec 30.


This certificate gives us the key to understand a lot about the process. We know from “Public Health Regulations” Chapter 8, Section 4, that local registrars were required to collect certificates for a week and then deliver them to the state registrar’s office. This requirement makes sense because births were required to be reported to a registrar within a week of the birth. The exception to the weekly transmittal of certificates was the outlying islands, which were to instead collect certificates until the 4th day of the month and then mail all the certificates for the month to the state registrar.


Once at the state registrar’s office the certificates were given certificate numbers – according to Janice Okubo (Hawaii Dept of Health Communications Director), whose claim is also corroborated by National Vital Statistics Reports.


Janna’s birth certificate also corroborates Okubo’s claim that certificates were given a number at the state registrar’s office, as you will see below.


Every Kapiolani birth certificate I’ve seen thus far from the statehood era shows that the state registrar received the certificates on Fridays.


Except this one. On this one the registrars accepted the birth certificate on a Thursday. And not the Thursday after the Tuesday birth; this wasn’t received in the state registrar’s office until the FOLLOWING Thursday.


To understand that, you have to see from the 1971 calendar that the Friday when the certificates would normally have been delivered to the state registrar fell on Christmas Eve, which was a federal holiday. So the certificates weren’t delivered that week. Midway through the next week, someone apparently realized that the office was going to be closed the following Friday as well, for New Year’s Eve, which was also a federal holiday. So they delivered 2 weeks’ worth of certificates on Thursday, Dec 30th.


When Janna’s birth certificate was received at the state registrar’s office there were 2 weeks’ worth of certificates from Kapiolani in the pile. There was possibly a similar 2-week pile from Queens – the other hospital which, together with Kapiolani, delivered most of the babies in Honolulu. And there was a month’s worth of birth certificates from the outlying islands that wouldn’t be sent to the state registrar’s office until Jan 4, 1972. In 1971 (see page 59) we see that there were 1,332 births in Hawaii in December. If about half those births were in the pile at the state registrar’s office or from outlying islands and not yet sent in, that would mean there were about 650 birth certificates that would have been numbered after Janna’s if hers was at the top of the pile. If hers was in the middle of the pile there would be 300-400 certificates numbered after hers.


What is her certificate number? 15,396. How many 1971 births were recorded in Hawaii? According to the CDC’s Vital Stats Report, 15,838. That means that there were 442 people who received a number after Janna’s in 1971. Exactly what we would expect if Janna’s birth certificate was in the middle of the pile at the registrar’s office.



Comparisons of other birth certificates also show that the number was given by the state registrar.


There has been speculation that the hospitals either had pre-numbered birth certificates within a range of numbers or that the hospitals were even given mechanical stamps that would only allow them to stamp the certificates within a certain range of numbers. If this were the case we would expect to see a range of numbers that was only used by Kapiolani, or by Queens (Kaiser), or by Army Tripler, or other hospitals.


In fact, however, below is a list of birth certificate numbers and hospitals I’ve compiled from birth certificates posted online or by personal communications from people willing to give just this information about their certificates. I’ve listed them according to their order in the calendar year (albeit different years, so this is just a general comparison) – which is the order that the numbers would be given if the state registrar numbered the certificates as they were received in the state office:


Date received Cert# Hospital

Jan, 1978     974            Kapiolani

June 1962     8,498            Wahiawa

Aug 1969 9,351            Kaiser (Queens)

Aug 1961    10,637            Kapiolani

Sept 1968    10,170            Army Tripler

Dec 1971    15,396            Kapiolani

Dec 1988    18,644            Army Tripler


The certificate numbers for Kapiolani range from 974 in January of 1978, to 15,396 in Dec of 1971. If Kapiolani was given a mechanical stamp that would only stamp certain numbers, the stamp would have to go from 0 to 15,400.


And there would have been at least 3 other hospitals which encroached on Kapiolani’s numbers. If blocks of numbers were assigned, the numbers could go as high as necessary, up to 999,999. There would be no need for other hospitals to use the ones assigned to Kapiolani.


To summarize: Janice Okubo’s statement that the certificate number was given by the state registrar matches what the CDC has said AND what the birth certificates we can observe actually show.




  1. Linda
    Posted March 6, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Aug 1961 10,637 Kapiolani

    Sept 1968 10,170 Army Tripler

    Is this a typo as the 1968 number is lower than the 1961 number

  2. Linda
    Posted March 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Aug 1969 9,351 Kaiser (Queens)

    Aug 1961 10,637 Kapiolani

    Sept 1968 10,170 Army Tripler

    Also the 1969 cert is lower than the 1961 cert. Did the numbers start over at the beiginning of each year as shown in the nordykes


    so the others might look like


    Just trying to wrap my brain around this so I understand it.

    • Posted March 7, 2010 at 12:19 am | Permalink | Reply

      Yes, Linda, you’ve got it right. The certificates always start with 151. The middle 2 digits are the year (or since the Y2K thing they might have all 4 digits of the year). And then the last 6 digits are the actual individual’s number, with zeros in front if there aren’t 6 digits (which there never are). I left off the zeros in front to make it easier to see the order of the numbers. Each year they start over.

      So yes, you’ve got it exactly right. =)

  3. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 1:58 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hello Butterzillion,

    I apologize for posting this so late after you posted this article, but I have some questions. You probably cannot answer all of them, but maybe you could answer what you can.

    I’ve noticed on the Nordyke twins BC that the mother signed them on August 7th, which was a Monday. But their doctor signed them on the 11th, a Friday and they were filed on the 11th. Do you know why there was a delay?

    Were the certification numbers already on the certificates when the mother signed them?

    From the newspaper birth announcements:

    Why was Obama’s published on August 13th but the Nordykes on August 16th?

    Is it because Obama’s was filed with the DOH on August 8th and the Nordyke’s on August 11th?

    In the newspaper announcements of August 13th (Obama’s), there are five children born on August 6th listed and five children born on August 5th listed. In the newspaper announcement of Augsut 16th (the Nordyke’s), there are six children from August 6th listed and one beside the Nordykes from August 5th.

    Why are the children born on August 6th and August 5th split up in the announcements?

    If the children born on August 6th, who are listed in the August 13th (Obama’s) announcement, had their BC filed before August 11th, the day the Nordyke’s were filed, would they have lower certificate numbers then the Nordyke’s?

    Thanks for any info you can give me.

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 3:30 am | Permalink | Reply

      No problem, Gorefan. Those are good questions, and I’ll soon be putting up another post which goes into the announcements more. I’m happy to answer what I can now though.

      The HDOH hadn’t yet switched their Administrative Rules from territorial to state mode so we don’t have the Administrative Rules from 1961 but when they codified the state HDOH Administrative Rules in 1962 it was required that local registrars collect certificates for a week at a time and then submit them all to the state registrar at the same time – except the outlying islands, which were to submit theirs on the 3rd day of each month. That rule was probably carried over from the way they did things as a territory, just as the statutes carried over with just a few changes in terminology when Hawaii became a state. So the delay between when Mrs. Nordyke signed the BC and when the doctor signed was probably because Kapiolani – the hospital which presided over the vast majority of births in Hawaii – submitted their BC’s to the state registrar on Fridays. That’s the pattern that shows up in the BC’s that have been posted online, and it matches the rules. Except when the schedule was messed up by holidays, the doctors signed the paperwork on the same day as the deputized local registrar at the hospital signed them and delivered them to the state registrar – Friday.

      The HDOH has said that the certificate numbers were given by the state registrar on the same day that they got them from the local registrar (the “date filed”), so there wasn’t a certificate number on the certificate until the state registrar was done with them.

      The 3-day difference between the birth announcements makes sense superficially because of the 3-day difference in filing dates, but there are actually some problems with that. Since Kapiolani submitted their BC’s on Fridays, the Aug 8th “date filed” for Obama is problematic to his claim of a Kapiolani birth. If he really was born at Kapiolani then his “date filed” would have been Friday, Aug 11th, just like the Nordyke twins’, because he was born on Friday evening after the BC’s from that week had already been delivered to the state registrar. So his BC would have gone with the next week’s pile, along with the Nordykes’, since they were born on the next day.

      But it appears that the announcements were actually placed by the families at their discretion. In the post that’s coming I will document why I say that, but what we’ve been told even about the Aug 13th Advertiser and the Aug 14th Star-Bulletin announcements being identical isn’t true. The Star-Bulletin actually had about a dozen more announcements on the 14th that didn’t make it into the Advertiser on the 13th; the copies were truncated to hide that. There are births that we know never made it into either paper’s announcements at all. Some (like the Nordykes) made it into one paper but not the other. And some that made it into both were actually published as far as 3 weeks apart. The HDOH has indirectly acknowledged that they did not send announcements to the newspapers.

      So that explains the discrepancies you astutely noticed in the announcements you’ve been able to see online.

      If a person got their BC in to the state registrar’s office on an earlier day than someone else’s, they would be given a lower certificate number, since the certificates were all given numbers the same day they were received at the state registrar’s office, according to Okubo. Their birth announcement could appear at any time or not at all, according to the family’s discretion.

      A lot of what the reporters and HDOH have implied in the “news reports” is easily known to be false when a person has access to the actual newspapers, laws, and rules. That’s why we’ve had to fight so hard to see the actual documents. I don’t want to tease anybody too much, but the post that’s coming will document that just about everything we’ve been told about the birth announcements is documentably false, and the people who deceived the public knew it was false all along – starting with the Hawaii State Librarian who gave “Infidel Granny” and Lori Starfelt an Advertiser image that she knew was not from the library’s microfilm archive, and “Koa” who lied about getting her Star-Bulletin copy from the library microfilm herself. To find out where the announcements DID come from, you’ll have to wait for the post, which has been delayed for a while because the HDOH won’t obey the laws and respond legally to my requests. But that’s another story, which will also come out in due time – when it will be made abundantly clear why the HDOH doesn’t want the information known.

      Let me know if anything I’ve said isn’t clear. The documentation is being processed now and hopefully I’ll be able to get the post up soon.

    • minutemancdcsc
      Posted April 25, 2011 at 1:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      Gorefan, this has been said before, but I’ll repeat it.

      Medicare reimbursement requires the doctor to sign the clerical paperwork within five days, or the doctor has five days to sign it or lose it. Therefore, it is customary for the doctor to sign the paperwork within five days for all types of insurance, even those types which do not require a signature within five days. No doctor would keep up with reimbursements rules for hundreds of insurance providers, so they just do the paperwork on the Medicare timetable.

  4. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 5:06 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterzillion, when you wrote:

    “it was required that local registrars collect certificates for a week at a time”

    Are you referring to Title 11 Chapter 117 ( formerly, Chapter 8) Section 8

    “Local registrars shall transmit certificates filed with them weekly to the State Health Department”?

    Isn’t this only a minimum requirement? Could a local registrar submit them twice a week? Especially, in a very busy hospital?

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 11:50 am | Permalink | Reply

      I suppose that’s possible. The instructions for the outlying islands were specific right down to the actual day, but I suppose the weekly requirement could be interpreted more widely.

      The BC’s posted on the internet thus far suggest that Kapiolani didn’t do that. There was a year where Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve both fell on Friday, both at the time national holidays so government offices were closed. A BC from the week preceding Christmas Eve wasn’t sent to the state registrar on Friday because the office was closed. If there was another day that they sent BC’s in, like Tuesday, I’d expect the BC to be sent in then. What apparently happened instead is that the person in charge of that at the hospital realized the following Friday was a holiday also so he/she had the BC’s signed & delivered to the state registrar on Thursday.

      As far as Obama’s birth goes, since he was born Friday after office hours and Nordykes were born the next day his BC should have been in whatever pile the Nordyke announcements were in. If they split the week’s BC’s into a pile delivered on Tuesday and a pile delivered on Friday, then both Obama’s and the Nordykes’ should have been in the Tuesday pile – in which case the certificate numbers they have could work, because Obama’s could have been lower in the day’s pile. But the Nordyke BC’s were “filed” on Friday.

      That Tuesday filing date for Obama’s BC just really screws up everything, sticks out like a sore thumb.

  5. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Except that the Nordyke’s doctor didn’t sign thier BC until four days after the Mrs. Nordyke signed it. Could that be the reason that their’s was in the second pile? Perhaps, the doctor was unavailable on the August 7th?

    I’ve seen BC’s where the mothers and doctors signed them, on the same day. Is that the norm?

    This leads me back to one of my original questions.

    If a child, born on Sunday, August 6th, 1961, had their BC filed before August 11th, 1961. For example, on Tuesday August 8th, would their certificate number be lower then the Nordyke’s certificate number?

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m going to C&P the list I have of all the Hawaii BC’s I could find online so you can see the pattern. I hope the formatting works. Most often the parent’s signature is redacted so I can’t really make out a pattern on that. But the Kapiolani doctors usually sign on Friday when the local registrar signs. The exceptions are the example when Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve both fell on Friday (when the doctor signed on Wednesday and the registrar signed on Thursday) and back in 1949.

      It looks like the military hospitals may have delivered their BC’s to the state registrar on Tuesdays, which would make sense for the hospitals to stagger their days so the HDOH would not be overwhelmed on Fridays.

      I would dearly love to have a much larger sampling of BC’s.

      Regarding your question, the date of birth makes no difference to the certificate number. The only thing that matters is the “date filed” – the date the BC was received at the state registrar’s office and given a number. The certificate numbers for the outlying islands would be WAY off according to the day of birth because they could be received at the state registrar’s office over a month after the birth. So their certificate numbers would always seem really, really late compared to certificate numbers of Oahu births on the same date.

      The CDC’s vital statistics natality report for 1961 uses a 50% sampling to determine some of the statistics. In the appendix describing the protocols they explain that the 50% sampling is reliable because the BC’s are already generally sorted by geography when they are submitted to the state registrars. Looking at Hawaii, for instance, that’s because the local registrars submitted all their BC’s at once rather than having BC’s trickling in from all over the state at random. BC’s from the outlying islands, for instance, wouldn’t be intermingled with the Oahu BC’s because the outlying islands sent theirs in all at once. The military hospitals sent theirs in all at once. Kapiolani sent theirs in all at once. Etc. So statistically, you don’t have to worry about the non-Oahu births accidentally getting undersampled because they just happened to be the odd-numbered BC’s sprinkled among the Oahu BC’s. The only category which might be vulnerable is the unattended births, but those apparently required a doctor’s visit to complete the BC anyway so the doctor/hospital may have sent in those BC’s after all.

      I hope that answers your question. Here’s the raw data on which I base my conclusions:

      Sample birth certificate (no cert number)

      DOB: Jan 16, 1978 (Monday)
      Date signed by parent: Blacked out
      Date signed by doctor:
      Date received by local registrar: Jan 20, 1978 (Friday)
      Date accepted by state: Jan 20, 1978 (Friday)
      Kapiolani Hospital
      Altered – Given name added 6-5-1978
      Cert# 000974 (Nordykes)
      DOB: Aug 5, 1961 (Saturday)
      Signed by parent: Aug 7, 1961 (Monday)
      Signed by doctor: Aug 11, 1961 (Friday)
      Date accepted by local registrar: Aug 11, 1961 (Friday)
      Date accepted by registrar gen: Aug 11, 1961 (Friday)
      Kapiolani Hospital
      Cert# 10,637 (Alan)
      DOB: blacked out
      Date signed by parent: Sept 6, 1963 (Friday)
      Date signed by doctor: Sept 6, 1963 (Friday)
      Date accepted by local reg: Sept 6, 1963 (Friday)
      Date accepted by reg. gen.: Sept 10, 1963 (Tuesday)
      US Army Tripler Hospital (Edith Coats)
      DOB: June 15, 1962
      Signed by parent: June 15, 1962 (Friday)
      Signed by doctor: June 15, 1962 (Friday)
      Date accepted by local registrar: June 19, 1962 (Tuesday)
      Date accepted by reg gen. June 19, 1962 (Tuesday)
      Wahiawa General Hospital
      Cert# 8,498 (Janna)
      DOB: Dec 21, 1971 (Tuesday)
      Signed by parent: (date of signature not given)
      Signed by doctor: Dec 29, 1971
      Date accepted by local reg: Dec 30, 1971 (Thursday)
      Date accepted by reg. gen.: Dec 30, 1971 (Thursday)
      Kapiolani Hospital
      NOTE: The Friday after the birth was Christmas Eve; the next Friday was New Year’s Eve. You can see at this calendar that both those Fridays were federal holidays that year. They missed the transfer of data on Christmas Eve and rather than let it go another week because of the New Year’s Eve holiday had the doctor sign on Wednesday and transferred the BC’s on Thursday).
      Cert# 15,396

      Alan Booth
      DOB: Nov 24. 1981
      Signed by parent:
      Signed by doctor: Nov 27 (Friday)
      Date accepted by local reg: Nov 27 (Friday)
      Date accepted by reg. gen.:Nov 27 (Friday)
      Kapiolani Hospital

      Booth dad (at )
      DOB: July 17, 1949 (Sun)
      Signed by doctor: July 19 (Tues)
      Rec’d by local reg: July 25 (Mon)
      Kapiolani Hospital

  6. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Edith Coats’ (Wahiawa General Hospital) BC was accepted on a Tuesday.

    Alan’s (US Army Tripler General Hospital) BC was also accepted on a Tuesday.

    So, if a child was born on August 6th, 1961 at either Wahiawa General or US Army Tripler General Hospital and their BC was filed at DOH on Tuesday August 8th, 1961.

    Would they have lower certificate numbers then the Nordyke twins?

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes, they should have a lower number if their “date filed” was on Aug 8th, since the Nordyke “date filed” was Aug 11th.

  7. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So out-of-sequence certificate numbers would not be that unusual.

    In fact, it’s possible that every weekend, children born on Friday or Saturday at Kapiolani would have higher certificate numbers then children born on Sunday or Monday at Wahiawa or Tripler. Of course, depending on when the BC were filed/accepted with the DOH.

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 3:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Out of sequence according to the birth dates would not necessarily be unusual. But out of sequence according to the DATE FILED should not happen at all.

      That’s why people need to understand that the problem for Obama is not the BIRTH DATE, but the DATE FILED. The birth date is neither here nor there to either the certificate number or the birth announcements. It is Obama’s certificate number being out of sequence according to the DATE FILED which proves that the COLB is a forgery.

  8. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not sure I agree that it is proof that the “COLB is a forgery”, what I think it shows is that there is not enough data. You have such a small sample set of 7 or 8 BCs, spread out over almost 20 years. Each example is just a single snapshot of a single vital event and provide no information but other vital events.

    Can you say, for example, that the BCs number 10,639 and 10340 are not from children filed before the Nordyke twins. What about number 10635 or 10636, when were they filed? Or 10642, 10643 when were they filed? What are the certifcation numbers for other children whose BCs were filed on August 8th?

    Is it possible that the Nordyke’s BCs are the anomalies? If not, how can you show it?

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 6:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If what Janice Okubo said is true, then it is proof of forgery. And it’s not a stunning proof either, since the absence of any note about the amendment already confirmed it as a forgery anyway.

      There are 3 days between when Obama’s COLB was numbered and when the Nordykes’ were numbered. If Obama’s was submitted on Tuesday then it was most likely submitted along with the BC’s from the military hospitals. I’ve looked at the birth announcements; there were a lot of military births. I looked again at PHR Chapter 8 and I was mistaken about the 3rd day of the month. It actually says that whatever BC’s are on hand at out-lying local registrars’ offices on the 4th day of the month shall immediately be sent by air-mail. So those would have been sent out on Friday. Depending on when during the day they were sent and how long it took for delivery, those could have also arrived on Tuesday – a month’s worth of births outside Oahu.

      Given the claim of a Kapiolani birth (although the earlier claim was a Queens birth…), the Tuesday “date filed” is problematic anyway.

      All I’m really asking for is a thorough legal investigation because there are definitely signs that something is very, very wrong with the story Obama and the HDOH are trying to put out there.

      Would you agree?

  9. Gorefan
    Posted June 4, 2010 at 5:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butterzillion – one last comment before I have to run off for the weekend. If tomorrow, you had a copy of President Obama’s BC and it had the certification number: 151-61-10641.

    Would that explain why his cert # is higher then the Nordyke’s?

    Have a good weekend.

    • Posted June 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      At this point, because of the illegal actions of the HDOH, I would want a full investigation of everything including the embedded data in Obama’s file, all the original records including index records, certificates, and supporting documentation, depositions from HDOH and OIP workers, and polygraph tests for Okubo, Fukino, and Paul Tsukiyama.

      I would also want to see the birth certificates before and after that number.

      The HDOH claims they don’t have a birth certificate for a baby girl whose death was announced by the hospital where she almost certainly was both born and died a day later (a hospital legally required to submit both the birth and death certificates for her). If that birth certificate doesn’t exist, as the HDOH claims, somebody is in deep, deep trouble. The HDOH is supposedly being investigated right now by the Ombudsman’s Office for possibly illegally destroying permanent records (original birth index from 1961 and index of foreign births). If they also destroyed the birth certificate for a little girl so they could give her certificate number to Obama, then somebody at the HDOH had better be sitting in jail for a long, long time as a result of this.

      Would you agree?

  10. Gorefan
    Posted June 7, 2010 at 9:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Butterdillion – I hope you had a good weekend.

    I have to disagree with you on the interpetation of PHR Chapter 8 Section 8 as it applies to the outlying islands. You said “a month’s worth of births outside Oahu.” I suspect that that part of Section 8 only applies to BC that remain in the local registrars hands after the first of the month. So, if on May 4th, the local registrar has BCs from April, they must be mailed “immediately by airmail.”

    Most likely the local registratrars mailed BCs throughout the month, at least weekly, using regular mail.

    I’m unfamilar with the “baby girl” story so cann’t comment, when were the index records destroyed?

    • Posted June 7, 2010 at 11:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      For those who aren’t sure what we’re talking about here I’ll post the section in question:

      “Transmittal of certificates. Local registrars shall transmit certificates filed with them weekly to the State Health Department, except that on the out-lying islands all certificates on hand the 4th of the months following the month of occurrence shall be mailed immediately by airmail.”

      This language doesn’t make any sense to me if what was actually going on or desired was a steady drip of BC’s every day of the week. People can read it and interpret it as they see fit, but what difference would the 4th of the month make if the out-lying registrars were going to send in what they had as soon as they got them anyway, or even weekly?

      And the CDC’s rationale for using a 50% sampling is total BS if BC’s just trickled in randomly from hospitals every day.

      It would also have to be just coincidence that the BC’s which have been posted online fit the pattern of BC’s from local registrars being submitted once a week.

      A difference of interpretation I guess, and that’s fine. But neither the words nor the observable evidence from the time make sense to me unless the Oahu BC’s were submitted by the local registrars once a week and the outlying islands’ once a month.

      There’s a link from the “Red Flags” post which tells about the HDOH saying the original birth index (which existed in 1980 and was required to be retained permanently) does not exist. The Ombudsman’s Office is supposed to be investigating this as we speak.

  11. Gorefan
    Posted June 8, 2010 at 12:29 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion, first off let me apologize for getting your name wrong. Sometimes, I’m a bit dyslexic.

    I’m looking at the language of the regulation especially the strange phrase “on hand”. This implies that these BCs were leftovers and that there were BCs that were no longer “on hand”. Also the use of the word “immediately”, which implies an sense of urgency for these “on hand” BCs. And the need to airmail them, as if a time limit might be approaching.

    Maybe, sometimes in the past, BCs from the outlying island were slow in showing up, which caused them to be “Late Birth Registration”.

    It wouldn’t be unusual for regulations to be written to address specific problems which existed at the time but which no longer are applicable.

    There certainly are easier ways to say “deliver the BCs once a month”, then what is written. It’s tough when your looking back 50 years to try and understand what people were thinking. And the problem is that no one currently working at the DOH was there in 1961. So they may not know exactly why it was written that way.

    Do you have any examples from the outlying islands?

    And I still have a hard time saying that there is a definite pattern when you only have 5 or 6 BCs from Kapiolani over a twenty year period (that’s out of tens of thousands of births). Fridays may have been the predominate time to send in BCs to avoid the 7 day time limit but that does preclude them from being sent in on Tuesdays.

    Why have the Wahiawa General Hospital send theirs in on Tuesdays?

    • Posted June 8, 2010 at 4:07 am | Permalink | Reply

      When I think of a “weekly” newspaper, I don’t think of a daily or every-other-day newspaper. I think of a once-a-week publication. When it says that certificates filed with local registrars are to be transmitted weekly to the state registrar, the word “weekly” doesn’t make sense to use there if it really has nothing to do with a week at a time.

      I think the point of referring to certificates “on hand” is to make clear that there was no requirement, for instance, that all the births from the previous month be included in the shipment – because on the 4th day of the month there would still be some outstanding BC’s from the previous month, since the deadline to file a BC with the local registrar was 7 days.

      I don’t have BC’s from the outlying areas. As I said, I would dearly love to have more BC’s but I have to operate with what I’ve got.

      I don’t know who decided when the various hospitals’ BC’s were submitted to the state registrar, or why they chose what they did. From notes on some of the Kapiolani BC’s it seems that the HDOH deputized somebody at the hospital to be a local registrar. Chapter 8 of PHR says that counties were to be vital statistics registration districts. So it could be that Kapiolani, because it was where a lot of the births were, had their own local registrar and submitted their BC’s on Fridays, with the smaller hospitals submitting their BC’s to a local registrar’s office and that registrar delivered those on Tuesdays. That’s one possible scenario. If that was the case, then births reported to the local registrar would have also been delivered to the state registrar on Tuesdays. But we don’t really have any way of knowing for sure without looking at more BC’s and analyzing the patterns.

      In any event, the discrepancy between the “date filed” and the certificate number is problematic to the genuineness of the Factcheck COLB, and the Tuesday filing date seems to be problematic to Obama’s claim of a Kapiolani birth. Especially combined with the confirmation of the amendment and the laws and rules that the HDOH has broken in the past 2 years, there is more than ample reason for a legal investigation, which is what I’ve been asking for.

  12. Gorefan
    Posted June 8, 2010 at 4:43 am | Permalink | Reply

    When I look at the Nordyke twin’s BC, I see that the cert #’s numbers start in different parts of the page – for Susan, it is under the P in Department and for Gretchen under the D in Department. Also both of the numbers have slightly out of aligned numbers (06 in 10638 and 10637 are raised above the other numbers), this suggests to me a handstamp. The kind with dials that rotate to increase or decrease the numbers.

    How do you see the the cert #’s being added to the BCs?

  13. butterdezillion
    Posted June 8, 2010 at 1:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Probably a handstamp, like you say.

  14. Gorefan
    Posted June 8, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In 1961, I imagine the DOH would have used an index book. The first column on a page would be the Cert #, the next column the last name followed by the first, then the DOB, mother and father’s names.

    The recorder would stamp the BC w/cert #, then stamp the index book and enter the other info into the book or vice versa. Then the BCs are filed by cert #s.

    When the Nordykes needed a copy of their BC, they porbably would not have known the cert #, so the clerk would pull out the 1961 index book, turn to August pages and scan down to find the Nordykes. Then the clerk could go to the file room and pull out BCs 61 10637 and 61 10638.

    It that how you imagined it worked?

  15. Gorefan
    Posted June 8, 2010 at 8:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Why didn’t the doctor sign Janna’s BC until the 29th? Even if Friday the 24th was a holiday, why not deliver them on the 23rd? The Friday before the 30th was also a holiday. Why wait? Why violate the 7 day rule? Why violate their own procedures of delivering weekly? Did the doctor not being available until the 29th have something to do with it?

    If the outlying islands had to deliver their “on hand” BCs by the 4th of December, wouldn’t they have already been processed? Wouldn’t the ones for births in December not be there until the 4th of January.

    • Posted June 8, 2010 at 9:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure, but I think the 7-day time period was for a birth to be registered with a local registrar. The transmission instructions could have been to make sure that the BC’s didn’t sit around at the local registrars’ offices. Regarding Janna’s, I would imagine the hospital didn’t realize the problem until it got closer to the 2nd holiday and then they decided to stay as close to their normal schedule as possible, with the doctor signing the day he was on duty.

  16. Gorefan
    Posted June 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Mayber they did drop off other BCs on the 23rd, but Janna’s was left behind to wait for the doctor. Then they would not have violated the weekly rule or the 7 day rule for the majority of that weeks BCs. Could Janna’s be an exception or anomaly?

  17. Gorefan
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 6:25 am | Permalink | Reply

    I thought the 7 day regulation was -“Section 2. Time allowed for birth report. A certificate of every live birth shall be filed within 7 days of occurrence.”

    Isn’t the date a BC is filed the date they put the certificate number on it?

    Isn’t it the same as the “date accepted by registrar general” or “date accepted by State”?

    Also the hand stamp certificate number has changed. It looks more like a printed number. Like you might get if you pushed the edge of the paper into a stamp machine, like a time clock.

    Also the BCs have changed to read “date received by local registrar”, whereas the BC from the 1960’s say “date accepted by local registrar”, what’s the distinction? Why change it?

    In the 1960’s were the local registrars able to accept a BC and add a file date?

    • Posted June 9, 2010 at 11:24 am | Permalink | Reply

      Those are good questions. We’ve been trying for a long time to get answers to those questions from the HDOH, and they keep saying they don’t have to answer questions, only provide records. When we ask for records which describe the distinction they say they don’t have any records which describe ANYTHING. If what they say is true, they don’t have anything written down about how they do anything in that office.

      I do know that a person had additional time to get a supplemental report to furnish information missing when the BC was submitted, so that suggests to me that the 7-day requirement is for the basic information to be reported to somebody, not necessarily that the whole thing needs to be completed within 7 days (which is what the state’s acceptance and numbering of the BC is supposed to mean, that the BC is complete). The “date filed” – the only processing date which now makes it onto the ABBREVIATED birth certificate (COLB) is just the date that the BC was received at the state registrar’s office and given a number. The HDOH seems to have said that they used to distinguish between when the local registrar received the BC and when the state registrar received it but have eliminated that distinction on the COLB’s because everything is filed electronically and it was always the same day on Oahu anyway.

      The thing the HDOH won’t address – which was a potential reason that a BC could be submitted to the state registrar’s office the same day as another BC and still receive a much later number and could thus possibly help explain the discrepancy – is what happened if the BC wasn’t complete or if there was a problem with the documentation when it was submitted to the state registrar’s office. We have tried and tried to get answers regarding what happens in that event – what would show up on a COLB in that event – and the HDOH simply refuses to answer questions.

      So what they’ve said seems to say that they won’t accept a BC at their office unless it can be given a number the same day. So the local registrars have to make sure that the BC is complete and all the necessary documentation is included before they submit it to the state registrar’s office. But on the request form for a copy of a BC there is a “For Office Use Only” section that lists the indices that they are supposed to check off when they’ve checked that index, and it includes a “pending” index. So that doesn’t seem to match what they’ve said. Their responses to me regarding the “Pending” index is that they can’t/won’t reveal anything about the STATUS of the index information they give. IOW, if somebody’s name is merely on a “pending” index and somebody asks for index data they will confirm that they have index data for the person without telling anybody that the birth claim is only PENDING. That would suggest that they will say they have a birth record for somebody even if there’s just a slip of notebook paper saying that so-and-so was born sometime. But they refuse to come out and say whether that is the case, or to explain why they have a “pending” index at the state registrar’s office.

      This is the kind of stuff that makes “vexatious requestors” out of people. There are discrepancies that just don’t make sense, and the HDOH refuses to clarify. If they had taken 5 minutes to just explain what their terms mean, they could have saved hours and hours of trying to answer requests by people who simply want to understand. They complain about being inundated with requests, but don’t seem to realize that if you answer requests the right way it means you don’t have to be asked 50 million times.

      Sorry about the muddy answer. This is why it has taken thousands of hours of work for me to arrive even at the conclusions I have. There are discrepancies, non-answers, and always – always – massive time delays and obfuscation to deal with from the HDOH. The only way we are going to get answers from the HDOH is if they are deposed and cross-examined under oath. Period. There have been enough problems with what they’ve said and done that I believe an investigation is warranted. But I submitted to the Ombudsman’s Office a list of 8 particular concerns I had regarding the actions of the HDOH – including the discrepancies in their responses – and the Ombudsman performed an “investigation” that dealt with one side issue that I had mentioned only as an example of a bigger point. They refused to address anything else. The Ombudsman has subpoena power. They also have power to go into an office at night and see records without warning (so the records can’t be altered). They are clearly authorized to do the kind of investigation that is called for here. But they refuse.

      So basically if you or I want the answers to those questions we have one way to get it: convince Hawaii law enforcement to initiate a formal criminal investigation of the HDOH, or convince the US Attorney for Hawaii (whom Obama appointed) to open a criminal investigation. That’s the only way to force them to answer questions. Of course, unless you have compelling evidence of wrong-doing nobody CAN open an investigation. And even after I’ve got compelling evidence of wrong-doing I can’t even get anybody in law enforcement to even acknowledge that I’ve contacted them, much less actually investigate.

      That’s why I’m convinced that this is a failure of law enforcement. That is the point at which I realized that my battle is not with Obama. This has practically nothing to do with Obama himself. It has everything to do with a corrupt government, media, and law enforcement system. That is what I am fighting, and that’s why I have to keep fighting even after Obama has served out his term and there’s nothing political to be gained by continuing to fight. This isn’t about Obama. This is about the corruption of the system, which will kill this nation unless we become a nation under the rule of law.

  18. Gorefan
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I think you are right that this “isn’t about Obama”, at least from the DOH point of view. From time to time, I use to have to inspect commerce testing labs, to see if they were following ASTM procedures. And it was always the same, I’d sit in the owners or managers office and they would tell me how they do everything by the book. Then I would go out into the lab and watch the technicians run the tests and almost evertime, they would cut corners, change procedures and not do things by the book. And when confronted,the techs would say, “that’s how they showed me to do it” or “we found it doesn’t make a difference to the results”.

    And that’s what I see happening here. Their not covering for Obama, their covering for themselves. You’ve embarrassed by showing the directors that their not doing things by their own procedures.

    What the Janna BC shows is that they don’t always follow procedures. What’s the point of the 7 day rule or the weekly rule. They treat them more like guidelines. So no matter how many BCs you look at, there can always be an exception.

    It’s even possible that in the 1960’s, the local registrars had their own handstamps and could put a file number on a BC. All they had to do was call the main office and have the recorder give them the next available number. Maybe that’s what they did in special situations. Especially on the outer islands

    Could that be what happened to the Nordyke twins? Were their numbers assigned to them on Monday the 7th? Because the doctor wasn’t available to sign the BCs. All it would have taken was one phone call.

    • Posted June 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think the 7-day requirement was just for there to be a report in to a local registrar, which Kapiolani didn’t have to worry about too much because they had a deputized local registrar right there at the hospital.

      The HDOH has said very few things directly, but one thing they did say directly is that the certificate numbers have always been given by the state registrar. PHR Chapter 8b says that giving a number is synonymous with the state registrar accepting the certificate.

      I think the Janna BC shows that they had a routine of submitting BC’s on Friday. When the office wasn’t open 2 Fridays in a row it threw them for a loop.

      I absolutely think they are covering for Obama – for instance, by taking down their Administrative Rules to hide that a non-certified COLB is supposed to be available to anybody who asks for it, as well as other laws they deliberately broke for Obama’s sake, some of which will soon be revealed. To me, though, the more serious problem is THEIR dishonesty rather than Obama’s dishonesty. There will always be crooks trying to swindle – especially politicians will be crooks. But the system is supposed to be set up to catch and stop crooks when they try. If the system is sound, the crooks won’t get through. But this system is definitely not sound. This system is inhabited by crooks covering for crooks.

      I’m not talking about cutting corners here or there or making exceptions to the 7-day rule in extreme situations. I’m talking about deliberate actions taken by the HDOH to break the laws and/or rules, in order to cover for Obama. I noted 8 ways that was happening when I made my first request for the ombudsman to investigate – and that was before a lot of the worst stuff had even happened. This isn’t accidental and it’s not piddly corner-cutting. They have/had a procedure they followed, they are required to make those procedures known to the public, and they refuse to do so. They’re either lying about records not existing or else they have destroyed permanent records pertinent to Obama’s records. That’s not just a SNAFU; that’s deliberate, criminal action.

      Which is why this is serious even beyond the seriousness if it was just Obama lying and breaking the laws. He only got away with it because the government bureaucracy also lied and broke laws – and that is the thing that should be sobering to everybody who values the rule of law. That’s what I’m saying.

  19. Gorefan
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 6:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    PHR Section 2 uses the words “filed within 7 days”. Doesn’t file mean certifcation number added?

    I have to disagree with you meaning of the Janna BC. The people knew that they had both Fridays off. Why not submit BCs on the first Thursday (12/23/1971) or even the next Monday the 27th?

    Are you saying that they were so anal retentive that they were worried about delivery BC at the end of the week but could careless about PHR Section 2 and Section 8?

    That doesn’t make sense.

    And I’m not saying that the State registrar didn’t give out the certifcation number. Quite the contrary, I’m saying that a local registrar could call the State registrar and be given the certification number and then stamp the BC with the number given to them.

    • Posted June 9, 2010 at 7:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Here are the 2 sections from PHR Chapter 8 which deal with the filing of certificates:

      Section 2. Time allowed for birth report. A certificate of every live birth shall be filed within 7 days from date of occurrence.

      Section 8. Transmittal of certificates. Local registrars shall transmit certificates filed with them weekly to the State Health Department, except that on the out-lying islands all certificates on hand the 4th of the months following the month of occurrence shall be mailed immediately by airmail.

      The word “filed” in section 8 actually refers to the local registrars. If the word is used consistently, section 2 would mean that a BC had to be turned in to the local registrar within a week of the birth.

      The later version of PHR, PHR Chapter 8b, has a section labeled, “3.1 Amendments After Official Acceptance of Certificate”, which says, “No amendments… shall be made on any ….certificate after the assignment of a state file number unless such amendments…” The terms “official acceptance of certificate” and “the assignment of a state file number” seem to be used interchangeably.

      So it seems like “filed” as used in PHR Chapter 8 doesn’t refer to when the BC is given a number. That meaning was added later, according to Okubo, who said that they rolled all the previous terminology (accepted, received, filed) into the one term “filed” on the COLB’s they print now (since 2007, according to COLB’s posted) – which now means the date that the BC is received in the state registrar’s office and given a number. That’s not the way the term was used in the 1962 version of the DOH Administrative Rules though.

      I think the hospital had their normal routines that they went through and they only realized after the fact that they had missed the day they usually delivered the BC’s to the state registrar’s office. Because that wasn’t part of their routine on Monday they probably didn’t even think about it on Monday. It was probably when the stack started getting large enough to be a problem that they realized why it was getting larger – because of the holiday – and also realized that the same thing was going to happen that week. By that time it probably didn’t make sense to deliver what they had and then make another delivery in another 1-2 days so they just decided to send it all on Thursday. Because the 7-day rule was for filing with the local registrar (who was right there in the office) there would have been no legal rush to get the BC’s transmitted to the HDOH. It was already too late to change the fact that they missed the past week’s transmission so a day or two more wouldn’t make any legal difference anyway. Realizing that the doctors normally signed on Fridays but wouldn’t be there that Friday, they probably made sure to get the signatures from the doctors when they were on duty – which, for some of them, was probably on Wednesday.

      The local registrar would have no reason to worry about putting a certificate number on the BC. The state registrar did that and there was no time constraint as to when that had to happen. Giving a number to a BC before the state registrar had even received the BC would make the giving of the number mean something besides the official state acceptance of the BC.

      The situation with non-Oahu BC’s also makes it clear that the 7-day deadline was for the BC to be filed with a local registrar – because there is no exception to the 7-day deadline for non-Oahu filing. There is just a different procedure for the transmittal of the BC’s to the state registrar – a procedure that allows the BC to be received at the HDOH up to a month after the birth, which wouldn’t comply with the 7-day deadline if that deadline refers to when the BC had to be in to the state registrar’s office.

  20. Gorefan
    Posted June 9, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I see what you are saying about “filed” in section 2 and 8 and you are right. Filed in this context means something different then “filed” by State Registrar. But the local registrar at the Kapiolani General would still know that he/she was not working on Friday (12/24) and would still have a weeks worth of BC on their desk. Doesn’t explain why they didn’t turn them in on the 23rd. And therefore comply with Section 8.

    • Posted June 9, 2010 at 8:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It certainly would have been better if he/she had gotten them in on the 23rd. Could be that he/she forgot to get the doctors’ signatures while they were around. Or maybe too much holiday “spirit”. lol.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: