1960-64 Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records

Update: Some of the documentation for these claims is posted at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-asing-adoption-documentation/

The 1960-64 birth index includes the birth names of at least 2 adopted children. Those records are required to be sealed, and their inclusion in the public list indicates that the list has been manipulated by the HDOH. At this point we have no way of knowing whether any name listed in the birth index represents a legally-valid record.

Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. HistorianDude
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    How exactly do you know that the HDOH database even has a “sealed” flag?

    • Posted May 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve spoken to dabatase administrators who said that’s how it would be done. And the law requires that it be done somehow.

      I can’t get to it because I don’t have all my files accessible yet after wiping my hard drive last week, but the CDC’s recommended birth certificate also has a complete description of the database parameters and data entry instructions for their model BC. HI state registrar Alvin Onaka was actually on the committee that worked on the national standards, although his area was death certificates. Hawaii participates in the EVVE system which requires flags to be used that would alert law enforcement and employers to problems with a particular record. That would have to include if somebody was trying to use the birth name for somebody who had been adopted.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        In other words… you don’t actually know that the HDOH database has such a flag at all. You have somebody (an unnamed “database administrator”) with no direct knowledge telling you that’s how they would do it if they designed such a database, but since they didn’t design it, it is pure speculation.

        Thanks for confirming.

        The CDC database parameters are here:

        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/200XNAT_web_with%20clearance%20revisions-acc.pdf

        There is no “adoption” or “sealed” flag.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for that link. It’s called a “void flag”. Item 13. The default is “valid record”.

        That’s what I was talking about, and there you have it.

        It’s actually a pointless argument you’re trying to have, though, because they had to have SOME way of keeping those records separate, and however they did it they did something different in this case to make sure that what was supposed to be confidential – by order of the court – was actually in the public record.

        That’s deep doo-doo, no matter how you slice it.

        My kids need me to take them shopping. I’m not doing very well at taking a break from this. lol

      • gorefan
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

        Hi buter,

        Twoe more questions. Stig Waidelich’s BC was field on August 8th. We can see that in the screen shot and the CNN reporter actually commented on it in his report. How does that square with the Kapiolani Hospital only sent BCs over on Fridays?

        If the outer islands sent a months worth of BCs to the DOH on the August 4th. Does that meant that there were a big stack of BC’s waiting to be processed on Monday August 7th? Could that glut of BCs slowed the entire process down?

        Have a great weekend, have fun with the kids.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

        Waidelich’s BC is the only BC from Kapiolani that I have seen with a date filed other than Friday (or Thursday when there were 2 Fridays in a row that were state holidays). That particular date filed is a red flag to me for that reason, and it suggests to me that this particular COLB was specifically meant to address the “date filed” and BC# combination on Obama’s BC. Neither one of those guys should have had a “date filed” on a Tuesday. Their BC’s should have been in the same batch as the Nordykes, filed on Aug 11th.

        According to the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report, all the other islands combined had 2,710 births in 1961, for an average of 226 per month, compared with 287 births per week on Oahu. The process for the state registrar’s office should have been pretty straightforward since the local registrars had already checked everything over to make sure everything was in order. Probably the state office just checked to make sure all the required items were completed including signatures and then stamped it with both the number and the date. The actual clerical work of filing the long-forms in the files, indexing them, etc might have taken longer but that was something where it wouldn’t hurt anything for there to be piles that could be filed as time allowed.

        The Nordyke BC’s were accepted by both the local and state registrars on Aug 11th (the normal Friday procedure) so that tells us that they were not running behind; they were still completing the process in their office on the same day as they received the BC from the local registrar.

        You have a great weekend too, gorefan. Maybe I can get my kids to dig up dandelions with me. lol

  2. KJ
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Off topic, post as you wish or forward to Miss Tickly at your discretion.

    On documents released by the State of Hawaii

    Fuddy to Obama letter dated April 25, 2011
    “I have reviewed your request for two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. As the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority, in recognition of your status as President of the United States, I am making an exception to current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy[2].”

    Abercrombie Press Release dated April 27, 2011
    “In 2001, the Hawai’i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates.

    “Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate[1]. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made[2].”

    [1] Justification for not releasing long form earlier? Only the President can obtain a certified copy of his DOH long form BC? We know that Long Form Certificates were recently obtained by ordinary individuals. Were those certificates not “certified?”

    [2] Both Abercrombie and Fuddy state that Director Fuddy has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made. Would that “authority” allow “restoring” a “damaged” original document? If an original long form BC actually exists, why wasn’t a simple photocopy made on security paper?

    Did Director Fuddy also provide the “Certificate” in an electronic form? If the scan released to the public was generated by the White House from paper documents provided to Mr. Obama, there would be no pixel identical boxes and likely not the pristine alignment (outside the paper bend) of the “typed” characters and lines. Doesn’t the DOH link to the White House website copy indicate “ownership” of that flawed document?

  3. Amy
    Posted May 21, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Are we supposed to take you at your word that there are two adopted children’s names in the birth index? How do you know that the names in the index are not the names chosen by the adoptive parents and entered on the birth certificate?

    • Posted May 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I have the divorce documents where the father signed off to have the boys adopted by their stepdad and where the mother signed her married name, and I have the certified driver’s abstract of one of the boys under his adoptive name.

      I could post the evidence I have at any time but I’m choosing not to because this adoption is supposed to be confidential and I don’t want to bring unwanted attention to these guys – any more than any of us wanted to bring attention to Mrs Sunahara’s painful loss of her daughter, Virginia.

      When government is lawless the people who get hurt are the innocent.

      All we need to know is that the HDOH has allowed sealed, legally-invalid records onto their 1960-64 birth index.

      • Amy
        Posted May 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

        So you are asking us to trust you — just like Team Obama. If you cannot support your “research” then what use is it?

      • Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

        One difference. I am withholding what I have in order to protect somebody else from unnecessary attention they never asked for. Give me access to law enforcement and I would happily show them – and submit in court – anything I have stated here on this blog. That is more than you have EVER gotten from Obama or the HDOH.

        Anybody who has dealt with me knows I’m not a liar.

        You go look for the records of a Norman Asing born in 1961. I’ve been looking for 2 years. The reason there are no records is because there is no longer a Norman Asing who was born in 1961.

      • Amy
        Posted May 22, 2011 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

        Ah, but there is a Norman Asing. He still lives in Hawaii. A 1979 graduate of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Honolulu. A self-employed gardener, he was the first recipient of a micro-loan from the Consumer Revolving Micro-Loan Pilot Program, a program of the OHA Economic Development designed to assist Native Hawaiians.

        Is your point that he was never born? His birth announcement in 1961 suggests otherwise.

      • Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:15 am | Permalink

        Where’s your documentation? The loan was given to Norman Asing Sr., so he could visit his daughter in Nevada.

  4. Amy
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

    By the way, the birth index just contains entries of the birth, under the name given at birth. What makes you believe that Hawaii — or any other state, for that matter — would change the index because of a later adoption? The child was still born in Hawaii, which is what the birth index reflects.

    • Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The birth record is sealed and no longer legally valid. Are legally non-valid records supposed to be on the birth index list shown to the public, Amy?

      If so, then what difference does it make if Obama’s name is on the birth index list – since it could be a legally invalid record anyway?

      BTW, did you see Historian Dude’s link to the CDC’s recommended birth certificate? I think it was field 14 – the “void flag” – which has a default setting of “valid”. When an adoption takes place tha original birth record is flagged with the “non-valid” flag and a new one created that has the different information and not flagged as invalid. To get that original record on the list the void flag had to be removed from that record – which is contempt of the court which finalized the adoption, ordered the creation of a new birth certificate, and sealed the old one. That is, unless they just manually added the name, in which case they could have manually added Mickey Mouse too – which means ANY of the names on that list could have been added regardless of whether there was a legally valid record for them.

      The listing of legally nonvalid records in the birth index means that we cannot trust anything that is in that index..

  5. Amy
    Posted May 28, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You evaded answering the question, so I will pose it again.

    What makes you believe that Hawaii ā€” or any other state, for that matter ā€” would change the index because of a later adoption? Where is your evidence — regulations, policies and procedures, etc. — that the INDEX is retroactively updated just because the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is?

    I get it that the birth certificate is amended and the adopting parent’s name is substituted. But the index is not a “birth record” nor does it identify the birth parent(s); it is simply an index of births in the state. Adoption does not alter the fact that a birth occurred in the state.

    You need to demonstrate what is/was DOH’s policy concerning the index. Until then, you have offered nothing but conjecture, none of which would hold up to scrutiny in a court of law.

    • Posted May 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Amy, you’re not getting it. There is no legally-valid birth record for Norman Asing or Nathan Asing. It doesn’t exist. If that name is in the Hawaii birth index, then we can say without a doubt that the birth index includes legally-nonvalid birth records.

      Why do you suppose they have a “void flag” for their computerized records? It is a flag to mark non-valid records. Why would they enter non-valid records in the first place? Or are there records that are initially believed to be valid which later either become or are found to be non-valid?

      How about you spend your life trying to hunt down documentation that the void flag is NOT used for making sure the original birth record for adopted children remains sealed from public knowledge? You’ve done nothing but tell me what you think *I* should be doing. Get off the couch, potato, and do some research of your own.

      I have shown that the birth index includes legally non-valid records. Since that is the case, we have no way of knowing whether any given record is legally valid or non-valid. IOW, the list means nothing.

      • Posted August 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        Or, compare the two birth indexes and note discrepancies between the two lists. Where the two indexes are in agreement, the list is meaningful. Where they disagree points out falsifications.

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: