HDOH Confirmation of Obama’s BC Amendment For Dummies
AKA The Summary for People too Smart to Get Bogged Down in Details. =)
An even shorter version is here.
This is the more understandable summary of how we know that the Hawaii Department of Health indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate was amended in 2006 and is thus not legally valid:
After a lot of hassle, sorting out, and back-and-forth between her and attorneys at Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices (OIP), requester (Terri K) requested from the Hawaii Department of Health copies of the receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate. The OIP attorney twice told Terri K that she could ask for those records but there might not be any if Obama didn’t amend his birth certificate, in which case the Department of Health should tell her so. The first step an agency is required to do when answering these requests for records is to see whether they HAVE the requested records. If they don’t have them, they say so right away and the processing of the request ends there. The HI law governing disclosures (Uniform Information Practices Act, or UIPA) only applies to records that exist, so if the records don’t exist, there is no reason to sort out whether UIPA allows disclosure.
If they have the requested records, they then go on to decide whether they can be disclosed. If they can disclose them, they do. If they can’t disclose them they say they can’t disclose them and cite the reason they can’t. If they are required to keep it a secret whether the records even exist (a very rare situation such as for firearms permit applications, criminal records, rape victim records, etc), they say that the records, IF ANY, cannot be disclosed (a “Glomarized” response which hides whether a record even exists). If an agency gives a non-Glomarized denial of access to requested records it is an admission that those records exist.
On sept 3, 2009 the HDOH responded to Terri’s request by saying they could not disclose “any related information” because she did not have a direct and tangible interest, as Hawaii law requires in order for the disclosure to be made:
“…Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information…”
Terri K didn’t understand that response or whether it was correct. So she appealed to the OIP for a ruling on whether that was a correct response. The OIP attorney replied that
“…It appears the Department of Health (“DOH”) denied your request by referring to a provision of the Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”) and a statute addressing vital statistics records… The DOH’s interpretation of the UIPA and section 338-18, H.R.S are correct…”
So access to the records had been denied, which is an admission that they exist. There were receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate.
Later on Terri reminded the Department of Health of all the things she had specifically asked for and asked them to clarify (as required by law) which of her requested records they had specifically denied access to. The DOH told her:
“Your request was denied in its entirety…”
So the Department of Health acknowledged that on Sept 3, 2009 they had denied access to all of the records Terri had asked for, which is an admission that they all existed – including invoices and receipts from Obama amending his birth certificate.
Later on, I sent a request identical to the “invoices and receipts” portion of Terri’s request. On January 5, 2010 the DOH responded,
“There are no records responsive to your request.”
That told me two things:
First, it told me that the existence or non-existence of those records WAS discloseable, confirming in yet another way that their response to Terri could not have been a Glomarized response but was in fact a denial of records that were acknowledged to exist.
Second, it told me that the receipts and invoices that still existed on Sept 3, 2009 were destroyed by Jan 5, 2010. Receipts and invoices have a 3-year retention period, so that 3-year time period ran out and the records were destroyed sometime between 9-3-09 and 1-5-10. That means that they came into existence sometime between 9-3-06 and 1-5-07.
So through all these official communications the DOH indirectly but officially/legally confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate sometime in the final quarter of 2006 – which was precisely when he was considering a run for the presidency.
HRS 338-17 says that an amended birth certificate is not self-authenticating as evidence:
§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]
And the standard COLB form has in capital letters “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”.
In other words, since Obama’s birth certificate is amended it is not legally valid and has no automatic evidentiary value. The State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of the claims on that birth certificate.
The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that they have no LEGALLY VALID birth certificate for Obama. And none of the announcements by now-former-DOH Director, Chiyome Fukino, ever claimed that the records she saw were LEGALLY VALID.