Dr Conspiracy on Birth Certificates

Doctor Conspiracy on Birth Certificates

This is taken from http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/green-flags-in-hawaii/#comments For further context please check out Dr. Conspiracy’s site and look for this post. I’ve posted this here to eliminate the need to search for the specific post. I extend my thanks to Dr. Conspiracy for setting me straight on this.

  1. February 14, 2010 at 10:08 pm   (Quote)

    Butterdezillion: I haven’t posted this on my blog yet but discussed it some last night. The DOH has changed so that their standard birth certificate includes 17(?) items.

    Oh, take a deep breath and read the following material carefully.

    All states collect the same basic information about a birth. They do this because the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) contracts with the States to collect this information set, and pays them for this statistical information when it meets their standards. States may collect additional information and this varies from state to state. The national standard birth certificate (which is actually a model) is revised every few years. The latest revision is 2003. Some states are just now adopting the 2003 standard. The standard is detailed on the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System page. This site includes an image of how such a standard birth certificate might be laid out. NCHS encourages states to make their forms look like the national standard, adding state-specific information at the end of the sections so as to promote uniform data collection across the country.

    You may be sure that Hawaii’s birth certificate looks more or less like this, and that the information collected contains all of these items.

    This is not to be confused with a “Certified Copy” which is the birth certificate private individuals gets. In paperless states like Hawaii, certain data items are abstracted from the birth registration database and printed on security paper, and this is the COLB. The content of the COLB is just the legal portion of the record, corresponding to the Child, Father, Mother parts of the national certificate. The hospital collects the full certificate data set, but the birth certificate the state issues is only a small part and what it includes may vary from state to state. In many states, there is no paper form at all; the hospital’s electronic medical records system transmits the certificate information directly to the state’s system. In states where paper is still used, when a birth certificate is issued for someone, they visually crop the paper form, giving only the top portion to the requester. In every state, a signature (either paper or electronic) of the one attesting to the facts of the birth accompanies every certificate submitted. For hospital births, the signature is that of the attending physician.

    You have gotten yourself so worked up over this issue that you’re not seeing straight. Hawaiian officials, are not changing the birth registration process to protect Obama. In the real world Obama’s birth certificate is a non-issue. Hawaii is doing exactly what all the other states do in collecting birth registrations. You are confusing what the hospital reports to the health department with what the health department prints on a certificate for private individuals.

    I do this for a living, and I know what I’m talking about. Go back and read your material. You will nowhere find that those 17 (?) items are what the hospital reports, because it isn’t so.

    Notes: Birth registrations and certificate contents have been discussed in several articles on this blog including:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/a-certification-is-not-a-certificate/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/birth-certificates-101-part-1/

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 8 
    0

    Reply to this Comment

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. HistorianDude
    Posted March 10, 2010 at 9:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The part you missed:

    “In many states, there is no paper form at all; the hospital’s electronic medical records system transmits the certificate information directly to the state’s system.”

    • Posted March 10, 2010 at 10:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      But the DOH rules currently say that a person is supposed to be able to get it all – either a photocopy or a transcribed copy of everything on the original birth certificate (which they call a “standard birth certificate” including the medical portion if they specifically request it. That means that whoever does their software has to provide that possibility. And what the CDC has for their standard US birth certificate also involves standards for the software used for the system. What they’ve got is a sample of how the software should be. There should be instruction manuals for how to do the inputting. I asked the DOH for that. They said they don’t have it. There should be field names and criteria. I’ve asked for that. They say they don’t have it.

      If I believed what they say, I’d say they have in their office a computer and a chair. Period.

      I really didn’t bring this up to argue about the particulars of their birth certificates. I’m pretty sure they still require the stuff that’s on the standard certificate, like Dr. Conspiracy said. And I recognize that switching to electronic poses challenges and the rules need to be adapted. According to Okubo (when asked to produce the contract for the software vendor who implemented their electronic conversion) they’ve had electronic records for over 20 years now. I’d say that should be enough time to go through the legal process to change the administrative rules to reflect the new reality.

      I brought this up because it is a prime example (of many more I could also share) of how they obfuscate at every turn and – indeed – delete content in order to hide their own waffling and to enable themselves to frame ME as a “mentally ill” “vexatious requestor”. Hawaiians should be disgusted. The DOH frames this as if we’re these crazy people out to get Obama when in reality, it’s about their own obfuscation. Why are they doing this, and what does it take to get some honesty out of government officials?

  2. HistorianDude
    Posted March 10, 2010 at 11:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not arguing with you, Nellie. I’m simply pointing out that you are asking for things that might very well not exist at all.

    When you write, “That means that whoever does their software has to provide that possibility,” that does not mean that it must be provided in the format you want; i.e. in the form of a “birth certificate.” If no such document exists, then it doesn’t exist… especially as a “blank form.” And the DOH has no obligation (as pointed out in one of your own OIC examples) to create a document that doesn’t already exist just because you’ve asked for it. As I have pointed out, no state has ever (to my knowledge) implemented a “birth certificate” that conforms to the current CDC reporting standards, and I have no small experience with birth certificates.

    But further, when you qualify the discussion with comments like, “If I believed what they say…” one is warranted in asking, why then do you even bother? You have concluded that they are lying to you, so what would lead you to imagine they’re going to stop now and suddenly come clean on something you are certain they have deliberately concealed from you?

    In all honesty, through whoever’s fault this well has been poisoned and the DOH has clearly decided that they are not going to be helpful to you if it is within their control… and it frankly is completely within their control. The offense you take at being labeled a “vexatious requestor” is, I’m sure, mirrored by their offense at being labeled “liars.”

    You may both be wrong, but you cannot both be right.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 2:18 am | Permalink | Reply

      Their administrative rules say it is to be provided as a standard copy of a birth certificate – either photocopied or transcribed with ink. To me that sounds like a paper document.

      And Hawaii law says that they have to make available to the public all the forms that they use, together with the descriptions of the procedures they use to process the forms. They may well not have these things in their office, but if they don’t it’s because they are not abiding by their laws and rules.

      The well had been poisoned long before I ever asked them for anything. Since Terri K got their admission that Obama’s BC has been amended, their answers have been nothing but stonewalling.

  3. ksdb
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 3:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’d be careful with anything Dr. Conspiracy says. I had to correct him on a lot of things he posted at his site. His accuracy leaves much to be desired.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      On this one I think he’s probably accurate. What he said matches what I’ve found in other contexts.

      I think this issue shows that the DOH is either changing their BC illegally, or lying, or both.

      But even more directly, the e-mail they sent which has had critical communications from me removed shows that they are willing to falsify the record in order to frame me as a mentally ill person, which I am not. This shows their character. They ARE the type of people who would look on the internet to see if somebody is anti-Obama and then give lying answers to a person not sufficiently pro-Obama, as the vital records dept head was proven to have done.

      • ksdb
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        That alone is very scary. Big Brother wears a lei.

  4. HistorianDude
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    That “administrative rule” has simply been overcome by technology. It is (in case you were unaware) an administrative rule, not a statute or a regulation, and considering the reference to pre-statehood RLHs, it is already more than half a century old. I note a reference on the DOH website that the rules are currently undergoing revision. Long overdue, I think we would both agree.

    Again, and I’m not certain how to make this any more clear… the DOH has no obligation to create and provide you with a document that otherwise does not exist. The earlier OIC rulings that you have referenced are explicit on that point. If there is no form (and there appears to be no form) then there is nothing to provide you with under Hawaiian law.

    Yes, I agree with you that it was probably Terri K who poisoned the well with the DOH and initially convinced them that no further cooperation was warranted. I think the whole push for “vexatious requestor” legislation probably lays at her doorstep.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 4:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The statute in question actually defers to the Administrative Rules so these rules have the weight of law. And actually the Hawaii statute says that the certificates must have at least what is on the CDC standard certificates.

      Sure, the rules should be updated, but Hawaii has been sitting on this for over 20 years. Then precisely when a contested election where the rules in effect are critical, Onaka and Fukino removed the Administrative Rules from public posting (which is required by law) and replaced it with a statement that the rules are in process of being changed. They are not. There are no proposed rule changes, according to the lt governor’s office. Furthermore, they refused to answer questions about what rules are in effect during the interim. This is a blatant attempt to hide what the rules are.

      I haven’t posted it publicly and don’t expect to have permission anytime soon to post the actual document because the requestor expects the DOH to discriminate against her if they know she is in contact with me (as the vital records dept has been proven to change to a lying answer when they know they’re dealing with somebody who is not pro-Obama) – but Onaka counseled Okubo to avoid answering a direct request for records describing procedures by claiming that the terminology doesn’t work any more because everything is electronic.

      Trouble is, right up to last year the DOH was still issuing certified photocopies of original birth certificates, minus the medical portion. And I’m sure they could just as easily have copied the medical portion upon request – as is required by their rules. They have had electronic records for over 20 years and up to a year ago they were still fine with obeying their rules. What has changed since then, that all of a sudden they can’t follow their rules and the terminology doesn’t work any more, and they have no procedures they can possibly explain to anybody?

      I don’t know how I can make it any more clear to you that they are REQUIRED to have these documents available to the public. It’s right there in the statutes.

      If Terri K “poisoned the well” by simply getting an answer to the request that Joesting twice counseled was well within legal reason, then my response to the DOH is, “Don’t beat me daddy. I won’t ask any more questions. Please… I’ll never be so demanding ever again. It’s all my fault. Just please don’t beat me……”

      Dysfunction. It’s what’s for dinner.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        Administrative rules can never have “the weight of law.” They are always subject to revision and supersession at will by DOH administration. Failure to follow them might have personnel implications within the department, but adherence to them cannot be enforced by anyone outside the relevant department. Administrative rules are, both actually and operationally, anything the administrators want them to be.

        Again, regarding the current CDC standards and the format of birth certificates (and I believe I’ve already pointed this out) the Hawaii Statute provides the massive loophole “subject to approval of and modification by the department of health.” The decision by the DOH to go “paperless” constitutes just such a”modification.”

        You write, “Onaka counseled Okubo to avoid answering a direct request for records describing procedures by claiming that the terminology doesn’t work any more because everything is electronic.” If it is true “that the terminology doesn’t work any more because everything is electronic,” (and I believe that you have yourself proven it is true)… wouldn’t that be the correct response for Okubo to give?

      • Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

        Hawaii law requires that changes to the administrative rules follow a process to ensure that public input is received and things cannot be changed on a whim. In short, it is designed to protect from exactly what the DOH has been doing.

        For instance, the director gets to decide what is included as index data. For now that is name gender, event. Then all of a sudden Fukino wants to claim that place of birth can also be released, but just for Obama. She doesn’t have the power to discriminate between one person and the next. But she has.

        The loophole doesn not remove the provision that the MINIMUM must be what is contained on the national standard certificate. They can add information and revise the layouts, etc, but the MINIMUM is required. If that wasn’t the intended meaning then what does “minimum” mean?

        It is not true that the terminology doesn’t work any more. As I said before, Hawaii has been electronic for 20 years so why is it just when people start “snooping” about Obama’s records and the procedures that apply to them that they can’t follow their rules any more? They were following these rules up to June of last year. Nothing has been changed through proper, legally-required channels since then so why can they all of a sudden not do what they had been doing before?

        They’re lying. Just as they have all along.

        But this whole issue should be addressed by Hawaii officials, not by me or you. I only brought this up here to show that they are NOT following their laws and rules, they are NOT answering legitimate requests even as they claim they have, AND they ARE FALSIFYING THE RECORD OF COMMUNICATIONS in order to frame me as crazy for wanting accurate and lawful answers.

        That should be problematic for any person interested in the rule of law. That’s the primary focus of this whole blog. The lawlessness has got to be stopped.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

        First, could you point me to the specific statute that dictates the process that you insist must be used for departments to revise their administrative rules. Second, what evidence do you have that the current revision of rules is not following the proper process. And third, if technology has in fact obsoleted a rule (as you have pretty much proven is the case here) how is it you suggest the rule continue to be followed?

        I do not know your professional experience, BDZ, but in my own experience with very large, highly regulated industries administrative rules are constantly being revised in the face of changing technology. When revision is not continuous, you get into the circumstance the Hawaii DOH clearly found themselves in here; having administrative rules that are no longer relevant at all.

        Now… as to Fukino’s professional discretion… clearly you understand the reason we actually have “Directors” right? If everything could be accounted for and driven by “rules” no decision making would be necessary. But since decisions are often necessary after all, we appoint qualified people and assign them accountability and responsibility to make them. You may not like Fukino’s decisions. But she absolutely does have the power to make them.

        The “loophole” is huge. It pretty much gives carte blanche to the DOH regarding what a standard birth certificate would contain. But here we have a perfect example of where technology has not only obsoleted the administrative rules, it has rendered the actual statute moot. There is no doubt that “at the minimum” the CDC reporting requirements are contained in the datafile maintained by the DOH. But it is no longer maintained on any paper form at all. There no longer appears to be any such thing as a “vault certificate” for births that occurred after about 2001.

        And I have to thank you… because I did not understand that until just this past 24 hours. Back in June ’09, Okubo gave an interview to the Star Bulletin that I frankly thought was garbled and unclear. In it she explained that Hawaii no longer had “long” and “short” form birth certificates, but had gone paperless in 2001. I did not realize then (as I do now) that she was actually referring to the front end of the process by which information is sent to the state. Hospitals no longer fill out paper certificates and forward them to the DOH at all. They instead transmit this information electronically and it goes directly into a database.

        So… Okubo was not confused at all and her answer was not garbled. I simply did not understand what part of the process she was (correctly) calling paperless. And furthermore, I now understand that at least some of what I thought to be deliberate obtuseness on the part of the DOH in their responses to you were not obtuse at all. They were bein perfectly direct and correct in their response to you.

        But the net result is that the DOH has nothing they can provide you when you ask for a blank “standard birth certificate” beyond the computer print-out that is the COLB. The form you are asking for does not exist.

      • Posted March 11, 2010 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        HRS 91-3. I gave the link to it in point #8 on my main post at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ . If you haven’t looked at that post, it serves as an index for all the documentation.

        For 2 years Fukino has been saying she has no discretion to release ANY information from Obama’s birth certificate and then she all of a sudden says he was born in Hawaii. Can you understand why this poses a problem?

        What does the word “minimum” mean?

        The information from an electronic file can be put in any form of output desired. They could easily write code to print the whole thing out – to look exactly like the CDC recommended layout for the standard BC. The method of collecting the data has no bearing on what output is possible. The information itself is a government record, which must be available to the public upon request except if it qualifies for a UIPA exception. The privacy exception does not apply. If a Hawaiian asked to see their complete birth record there would be no reason for the DOH to not provide that. Going paperless changes nothing.

        Input, processing, output. It all still happens, and the output can be put in any form desired. It can be put into both “long form” (what the administrative rules call the “standard birth certificate” and “short form” (what the admin rules call an “abbreviated copy”. The substance of the rules is not impacted by what method is used to collect the data. Even regarding the requirement that it be photocopied or transcribed in ink – the data can be printed in the form of a standard BC format such as the CDC has on their site – signatures and all – and that would be an ink transcription of the data which formerly would have been on an actual paper original birth certificate.

        This argument that they CAN’T follow the rules or that the terminology and means of collection, storage, and transmission alters the substance of what their office does is a bunch of rot. Anybody who understands basic computing knows better than to believe that.

        Furthermore, unless they give software to every person who registers an unattended birth, what they have will ALWAYS have to provide an avenue for paper submission of birth certificates. They refuse to address that part.

        BUT as I’ve said several times before, I never intended to go through the ins and outs of Hawaii’s electronic birth certificates. I posted this simply to show that the Hawaii DOH has been FALSIFYING THE COMMUNICATIONS RECORDS in order to frame me as mentally ill. And to show that they did NOT answer my reasonable request even when they insisted they had.

      • Posted March 11, 2010 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        I also should add that Hawaii statutes have been revised to reflect that records can be in electronic format. Any information that is stored in ANY format is defined as a government record. A birth record/certificate in electronic form is no less a government record than if it was on paper. UIPA requires that whatever form the information is in, it has to be made accessible to the public upon request unless it meets one of several exceptions.

        “We don’t want to print it out” is not one of those exceptions.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Thank you for that reference. I note that under HRS 91-1 the definition of “Rule… does not include regulations concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights of or procedures available to the public, nor does the term include declaratory rulings issued pursuant to section 91-8, nor intra-agency memoranda.” I think DOH is firmly within their authority to assert that the “rules” they are revising here fit under this exclusion.

        You write, “For 2 years Fukino has been saying she has no discretion to release ANY information from Obama’s birth certificate and then she all of a sudden says he was born in Hawaii. Can you understand why this poses a problem?”

        Actually, no, I do not see this as posing a problem. Ignoring that it was actually less than a year, I instead see it as a naïve attempt to end what she understood to be a false controversy. That it failed so completely is not entirely her fault.

        You write, “The information from an electronic file can be put in any form of output desired. They could easily write code to print the whole thing out – to look exactly like the CDC recommended layout for the standard BC.”

        I am certain that she could do that. But 1) under the OIC ruling that you yourself provided us there is no UIPA requirement for the DOH to create a form that doesn’t actually exist just because you asked for it. And 2) to produce such a form and call it a “standard birth certificate” would be a lie, and we know how much you hate that.

      • Posted March 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        How can you suggest that the refusal to print standard birth certificates that comply with Hawaiian law has nothing to do with “private rights or procedures available to the public”? If a person wants to see the birth information for their kid and the DOH on a whim decides that they won’t print that, that absolutely impacts private rights or procedures available to the public. The whole job of the state registrar is to store records and release information upon request. That is his entire job. If they screw that up they are screwing up everything the office is for and every way the office is supposed to serve the public.

        No, I absolutely cannot agree with you that they can change those services on a whim. If they can change that on a whim, then what COULDN’T they change on a whim?

        Either Fukino had the discretion or she didn’t. She started out saying she had NO discretion. That was the whole big wall she hid behind. Then all of a sudden she has the discretion – but only when she WANTS to have the discretion. If she has the ability to turn on and off her own discretion, then she has the discretion to tell us every frickin’ thing about Obama that they have any time she wants to – and she’s been lying about why she won’t do that. Even now she’s talking about how she “won’t be bullied to break confidentiality required by statutes”. That’s a boatload of doo-doo. If she had the discretion to make those announcements in spite of HRS 338-18a, then she has the discretion to do anything she darn well pleases. All her talk about the statutes is a bunch of BS.

        And that’s the point I’m making in all this: the DOH officials are changing their stories however it suits them best; the law is to them a moving target – but ALWAYS to keep from having to give actual documentation for Obama and from having to operate transparently for the public.

        If she has that kind of discretion, then why won’t she just come out with the documents and be done with it? That is not a rhetorical question. I am asking you why she won’t.

      • Posted March 11, 2010 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        The “rules” they’re talking about that don’t have to be open for public debate are things like, “Can employees chew gum?” The director has the discretion to manage her staff. That’s all that means. When it comes to the actual services provided to the public – the purpose of the agency to even exist – those rules must be subject to public scrutiny and input before being changed. And that CERTAINLY involves the issues of how and when vital records are collected, maintained, and issued.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 11, 2010 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

        Somehow, my response to these two posts ended up farther up the page. I have no idea how that happened.

  5. HistorianDude
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 10:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You wrote, “How can you suggest that the refusal to print standard birth certificates that comply with Hawaiian law has nothing to do with ‘private rights or procedures available to the public’? If a person wants to see the birth information for their kid and the DOH on a whim decides that they won’t print that, that absolutely impacts private rights or procedures available to the public.”

    I’m not sure I understand your heartburn here. If a person wants to see the birth information for their kid, then their first option is to get a COLB, which as we all know does come as a “standard birth certificate.” If they want additional information, then as somebody with a direct and tangible interest, they probably could get the rest of the information printed out too. But since we all know that YOU do not have a direct and tangible interest in any print out of real data, it is not clear to me what you imagine the DOH is obligated to provide you.

    The thing you asked for (a blank “standard birth certificate” that conformed to the CDC reporting requirements) does not exist. And the other thing that you are talking about here (a print-out of the data file for a real birth) is something you have no right to even ask for.

    So… I remain puzzled by how you imagine you have been ill served?

    You wrote, “No, I absolutely cannot agree with you that they can change those services on a whim. If they can change that on a whim, then what COULDN’T they change on a whim?”

    They haven’t changed any “services.” They changed their internal process by automating the collection and reporting of birth records. The services available to people with a direct and tangible interest do not appear to have been affected one iota.

    As to “what COULDN’T they change on a whim,” well, they couldn’t change the law, that’s for sure. And they couldn’t change any rules that do not meet the exclusion outlined in the statute. And they certainly couldn’t change the requirements to respond to UPIA requests, thus explaining their need for legislation to declare people “vexatious requestors.” So it seems quite clear that they can change some things and not others. Just like real life.

    You wrote, “If she had the discretion to make those announcements in spite of HRS 338-18a, then she has the discretion to do anything she darn well pleases.”

    Well… no. Not really. She has the discretion to make those decisions that conform to the responsibility and the authority of her office. We all know that there is a fuzzy line in the UPIA regulations regarding the conflict between personal privacy and the public interest. And it is among her great responsibilities to walk that line and weight those competing interests. She did so in this case. Now there are people who disagree with her decision; some saying she revealed too much and others saying she revealed not enough. But she is accountable for those decisions and appears to be bearing that accountability with great grace.

    The decision was entirely hers to make, and she made it.

    • Posted March 11, 2010 at 11:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      In this request I asked for nothing of Obama’s. I asked for a blank copy of the form for a standard birth certificate, including the confidential medical portion that is listed as one of the services that the DOH is to provide for people. They are required by 91-2 to

      “(2) Adopt rules of practice, setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available, and including a description of all forms and instructions used by the agency.”

      I asked them for the forms that their administrative rules say are available for the public to receive (standard birth certificate including the confidential portion and signatures, as mentioned in the administrative rules) and asked them for the items that are required when a hospital or person submits a birth certificate. They are required to give me that information.

      Okubo gave me a blank copy of what she called a “standard birth certificate”. So she has the capability of coming up with a blank form. Why couldn’t she come up with the form I asked for – the complete one, as referenced in the administrative rules? Your argument that she doesn’t have any forms doesn’t make sense given the fact that she did give me a form – which would have taken the same steps to produce as producing the complete form that I asked for.

      The services available to people who have a direct and tangible interest have absolutely changed. The DOH now refuses to print out a long-form birth certificate, with or without the confidential portion. They have the capability of doing so. It’s in their rules that they are to do so. They just refuse. Just like all the other laws and rules they refuse to obey.

      Regarding the DOH director’s discretion, HRS 338-18(a) says,

      “a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

      The DOH director has discretion to decide what index data is released to the public. I can assure you that Fukino has never authorized place of birth to be disclosed in index data, because the list that they print out of index data has name, gender, event. So disclosure of his place of birth is not authorized for release as index data. So where else has Fukino been given the discretion to single out an individual and make an announcement about what is on their birth certificate? Look through all the rules and statutes and tell me where she is authorized to do that. If it’s not authorized, then 338-18(a) says she may NOT reveal what is on a birth certificate.

      Fukino is authorized to release DOCUMENTS, not make announcements. She is authorized to release a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth certificate to anybody who asks for it. If Fukino wanted to obey her own rules and confirm the place of birth for Obama she could have, at any time and to any person, issued a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate.

      The reason to have her do that – and to exclude any other way of disclosing information, as explained in 338-18a – is to protect the integrity of the vital records. Any certificate they print out (including an abbreviated certificate) would have the file number AND note of any amendments, late filing, etc which affect the prima facie evidentiary value of the document. HRS 338-18(a) means that nobody at the DOH can release information other than the index data without ALSO putting it in the legal format that requires the legal STATUS of the document to be clearly seen.

      By making a public announcement she is forbidden from making, Fukino bypassed the legal requirement of including the legal STATUS of a record whenever the information in it is disclosed. She totally ignored both the letter and the spirit of HRS 338-18(a). And when called on it, she refused to explain where she suddenly got this authorization to do what 338-18(a) forbids.

      But as I’ve said multiple times, I didn’t bring this up because I wanted to discuss the ins and outs of it – although as you can see I’m not afraid of the ins and outs of it. It’s been an interesting detour. I don’t want anyone to lose sight of the fact that I am documenting here, and which you have never yet addressed: The DOH FALSIFIED THE COMMUNICATION RECORD IN ORDER TO FRAME ME AS MENTALLY ILL SO THEY COULD CALL ME A VEXATIOUS REQUESTOR.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 12, 2010 at 12:39 am | Permalink

        You wrote, “In this request I asked for nothing of Obama’s. I asked for a blank copy of the form for a standard birth certificate, including the confidential medical portion that is listed as one of the services that the DOH is to provide for people.”

        Yes you did… but as we have established, there is no such thing. The only “standard birth certificate” that exists anymore is the COLB, and you were provided that. There is no “form” at all that includes the “confidential medical portion” of the required CDC reporting. That information exists only as data in a database.

        You wrote, “I asked them for the forms that their administrative rules say are available for the public to receive (standard birth certificate including the confidential portion and signatures, as mentioned in the administrative rules) and asked them for the items that are required when a hospital or person submits a birth certificate. They are required to give me that information.”

        If they actually had forms along the lines of your request, they would have undoubtedly supplied blank copies, just as they so graciously provided you all the others you asked for that really did exist. As you yourself have seen, they have had no trouble providing you with copies of several other forms, so why they would withhold this one (if it existed) is completely inexplicable. I am still completely baffled by your refusal to simply accept that this last “form” you are asking for does not exist, and so there is nothing to give you.

        You wrote, “Okubo gave me a blank copy of what she called a “standard birth certificate”. So she has the capability of coming up with a blank form. Why couldn’t she come up with the form I asked for – the complete one, as referenced in the administrative rules?”

        Because there is no such form. She has told you repeatedly (as she told the Star Bulletin on June 6,2009) that there is only one “standard birth certificate” format, and it is the COLB. That is exactly what you were provided..

        You wrote, “The services available to people who have a direct and tangible interest have absolutely changed. The DOH now refuses to print out a long-form birth certificate, with or without the confidential portion. They have the capability of doing so. It’s in their rules that they are to do so. They just refuse. Just like all the other laws and rules they refuse to obey.”

        Nothing you wrote there appears to be true. There is no hint anywhere that they can not provide the “confidential information” to somebody with a direct and tangible interest in it. It simply would not come in the form of a “standard birth certificate” since the only document that deserves that description is the COLB.

        But you are not somebody with a direct and tangible interest, and the form you asked for does not exist.

        You wrote, “So where else has Fukino been given the discretion to single out an individual and make an announcement about what is on their birth certificate?”

        §92F-14 (a)

        You wrote, “Fukino is authorized to release DOCUMENTS, not make announcements.”

        Oh? Are you actually saying that she is prohibited from making announcements? That would be a very unusual prohibition on the Director of any State department, and I am unaware of any such draconian proscriptions in Hawaii or any other state.

        Departmental Directors are public officials. Making announcements is actually part and parcel of the job.

        You wrote, “The DOH FALSIFIED THE COMMUNICATION RECORD IN ORDER TO FRAME ME AS MENTALLY ILL SO THEY COULD CALL ME A VEXATIOUS REQUESTOR.”

        I do not believe that to be true. I believe that your have been labeled as a “vexatious requestor” for reasons having nothing to do with your mental health.

      • Posted March 12, 2010 at 1:33 am | Permalink

        I did not ask for anything of Obama’s in this request.

        A person does not have to have a direct and tangible interest to receive what HRS 91-2 says has to be available to the public.

        The DOH is required to print out the confidential portion if a person requests theirs. That means that form exists – just like the standard certificate (which is NOT the same thing as the Certification of Live Birth; the standard certificate has a couple more items than the COLB, according to Okubo). The argument that a form doesn’t exist applies equally to a standard birth certificate with confidential portion as to the standard birth certificate without confidential portion. If the form for the confidential portion doesn’t exist because it’s electronic and only gets onto paper when it’s printed out, then the same holds true for the BC without the confidential portion.

        Making announcements about what is on a specific individual’s birth cerrtificate is forbidden in HRS 338-18(a).

        The DOH states on their website that they no longer print long-form birth certificates. This is in direct violation of their administrative rules.

        I showed you straight from the e-mail history log in my e-mail versus the e-mail history log in their e-mails. They took out critical e-mails. If you can’t see that nor any of the things I’ve documented here then this conversation is wasted time.

        The “mental health” comment is because OIP Director Cathy Takase testified in a Senate committee hearing that the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” is necessary because there are “mentally ill people” (her exact words) who don’t recognize when they’ve already received their answer.

        I did not receive what I asked for but the DOH took out the e-mails which revealed that I was asking for something they refuse to give me. That’s because if it was clear in the record that I was asking for everything that is required when a hospital or witness to an unattended birth submits a birth certificate, it would be clear that they have NOT sufficiently answered my request, and they then wouldn’t be able to call me a “mentally ill” vexatious requestor.

        Oppressive regimes have always labeled dissenters as mentally ill and sent them off to the psych ward. This is the standard MO for leftists. This is how something like that begins.

        This conversation is getting us nowhere. We aren’t even seeing the same set of basic facts. I’ve laid out my case; you’ve laid out yours. We’re looking at the same page and you’re seeing something totally different than I’m seeing. Each person will see what they will.

        To anybody observing I say:
        Look at what is there and see if there are e-mails missing between the e-mail history that I had versus what the DOH had.

        Look at the links I’ve provided showing the actual Administrative Rules and the statutes and see if the law and rules require what I’ve said they require.

        See if you can find any place in the rules or statutes where the DOH director is authorized to disclose in an announcement non-index data for only one individual’s birth certificate.

        Look and see if the rules prescribe a non-certified copy of an abbreviated BC as the way for the general public to find out information the DOH director has authorized for public disclosure.

        Look up the definition for “minimum”.

        See if my request mentioned anything about Obama.

        It’s all right there; you can see for yourselves.

        Because the conversation with you, Historian Dude, has come to the point where we’re looking at the same page and seeing a totally different set of basic facts, the conversation can’t go anywhere. Bloom’s taxonomy is accurate; we can’t do analysis without first having an accurate set of basic facts. If we can’t agree on the basic facts there is no way that our attempts at analysis together will accomplish anything but frustration for both of us. Each person has to see what set of basic facts they see and do their analysis on that basis. If you submit a comment with new information I will post it but aside from that we’re just going to have to disagree on even the most basic facts and call it good.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 12, 2010 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        You wrote, “I did not ask for anything of Obama’s in this request.”

        Why do you imagine that is relevant? You have asked for a copy of a form that does not exist. The form would still not exist regardless of whether or not you asked for anything of Obama’s?

        You wrote, “The DOH is required to print out the confidential portion if a person requests theirs. That means that form exists – just like the standard certificate (which is NOT the same thing as the Certification of Live Birth; the standard certificate has a couple more items than the COLB, according to Okubo).”

        No… it does not mean that the “form exists.” It means that a report can be printed on an ad hoc basis. You have never asked for an example of such a report, and if you did you would not get something that looked like a blank form. You would get a header followed by a blank sheet of paper.

        I am dumbfounded as to how you seem incapable of understanding this very simple fact. If you wanted a different response from the DOH, you should have asked a different question. They have already repeatedly answered the one you were asking. It is the fact that you kept asking after you had been answered that probably accounts for you being tagged as a “vexatious requestor.”

        You wrote, “Making announcements about what is on a specific individual’s birth cerrtificate is forbidden in HRS 338-18(a).”

        I already referenced the law that gives her the discretion to release information when public interest trumps privacy concerns. What about that reference do you not understand?

        You wrote, “The DOH states on their website that they no longer print long-form birth certificates. This is in direct violation of their administrative rules.”

        That’s why the administrative rules are being changed. We have covered this several times already.

        You wrote, “I showed you straight from the e-mail history log in my e-mail versus the e-mail history log in their e-mails. They took out critical e-mails. If you can’t see that nor any of the things I’ve documented here then this conversation is wasted time.”

        I am fully aware that in their exchange of e-mail with you, some of the e-mail chains were complete and some were not. So what? This is a common characteristic of e-mail transactions (especially those that have been forwarded internally between organizational departments) and is no evidence of an effort to mislead anyone… especially since the complete e-mail chain persists elsewhere as you have shown. Your hand wringing here is pointless.

        You wrote, “The “mental health” comment is because OIP Director Cathy Takase testified in a Senate committee hearing that the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” is necessary because there are “mentally ill people” (her exact words) who don’t recognize when they’ve already received their answer.”

        Yes, that was certainly part of her testimony. Other than the personal offense you take from it, what is your objection to her testifying to something she appears to believe is true?

        You wrote, “I did not receive what I asked for but the DOH took out the e-mails which revealed that I was asking for something they refuse to give me. That’s because if it was clear in the record that I was asking for everything that is required when a hospital or witness to an unattended birth submits a birth certificate, it would be clear that they have NOT sufficiently answered my request, and they then wouldn’t be able to call me a “mentally ill” vexatious requestor.”

        This is a fascinating speculation. But I would suggest that your assertions of motive are likely in error. There is no need to challenge your mental health to label you a “vexatious requestor” and the actual legislation does not address the issue of mental health. The paper trail of your requests is what would establish your status, and the complete inclusion (rather than deletion) of all your e-mails would better serve that demonstration.

        Again, you have not been labeled a “vexatious requestor” because anybody considers you mentally ill. You have been labeled a “vexatious requestor” because (in the eyes of the DOH and the OIP) you are abusing the UIPA system.

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: