I open with the usual caveat, I am not a lawyer. Very early in this blog’s history, long before President Obama obtained under a special waiver a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate, we discussed the question of whether such a document could be obtained. I said from the beginning, based on my reading of the law, that Obama could obtain a certified copy of his original hospital-signed certificate. I said that it might not be a straightforward procedure, and it might even involve a lawsuit, but that it could be obtained.
My reading of the statutes (338-13 and 338-18) back then is the same as my reading today, and that reading informs me that Duncan Sunahara has a material interest in his deceased sister’s original birth certificate and is entitled to a certified copy of it. He’s suing to get it.
I have scanned the the State’s Motion to Dismiss and their position seems to rest on what the definition of “or” is. When they cite 338-13, they underline the word “or” so that it appears:
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.
The State contends, if I follow correctly, that they may chose what parts of the contents they disclose and that providing “any part” of their choosing satisfies the whole list of things separated by “or.” It would seem to me that the intent of the first paragraph is a grant of rights to those making requests, not a list of options the State may select from in meeting requests.
My reservation about the issuance of a computer-generated copy to fulfill all requests is that thy current computer copy issued by the State of Hawaii does not contain all of the information on the original certificate, for example, it does not contain the parents’ birthplace, hospital and attending physician.
The CRS report on statutory interpretation provides this interesting discussion:
Similar principles govern use of the words “and” and “or.” Ordinarily, as in everyday English, use of the conjunctive “and” in a list means that all of the listed requirements must be satisfied, while use of the disjunctive “or” means that only one of the listed requirements need be satisfied. Courts do not apply these meanings “inexorably,” however; if a “strict grammatical construction” will frustrate evident legislative intent, a court may read “and” as “or,” or “or” as “and.” Moreover, statutory context can render the distinction secondary.
In my mind, the clear legislative intent is to provide all of these options to the requester, not one of them.
I do not, however, support Sunahara’s request to watch the certificate being copied. It seems to me that the statute gives the State broad leeway in the methods they use to make copies.
In any case, this is why we have courts – to decide these things.
Following is Sunahara’s motion for declaratory judgment.
SUNAHARA v HAWAII DOH, et al. (HI CIR CT) – Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
b.Court permission for Duncan Sunahara and/or his representative to be present atthe copying, duplication or reproduction of the requested records, pursuant to HRS 92F-11(b),(d);c.Reasonable attorney’s fees and cost pursuant to HRS 92F-15(d); andd.Such other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just.DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,
.
though they may send Duncan a copy of LFBC this will never happen, there is no legal basis for it, in effect they are saying they don’t trus the DOH records.
Here is where you and I disagree, Doc.
The HI rules simply ALLOW for the possibility of granting such an exception. They do not ENTITLE one to be granted it.
The way I read the rules, HI has complied by giving the qualifying relative (brother) a certified copy of the COLB. Anything beyond that is asking for an exception, in which he has to show cause to justify such.
In conversations with John Woodman, we both see where a case can be made to provide an UNCERTIFIED copy of the orginal records.
However, to demand that a CERTIFIED copy of the originals is required is quite an extraordinary exception. Such things require extraordinary justification.
I do agree that various avenues of formal request or lawsuit would be the proper method to obtain such an exception in order to have it granted.
However, said request or lawsuit must be able to sufficiently SHOW CAUSE as to why that exception is necessary. In particular, such an argument must convincingly convey why the standard issue (certified COLB in this case) is INSUFFICIENT.
Unless there is something you’ve seen in Dean’s revealed case pleadings that we’ve missed, I’ve yet to see anything in this case that addresses that at key issue of WHY the certified COLB is insufficient and therefore a “certified original” is necessary. If you have, please spell it out, because I sure am missing it.
From what I’ve seen of the defense’s response so far, that is one of the key points they have made. They have complied and conformed to the rules and have not been given any justification of what the existing materials released are insufficient.
I’m with the defense on this. Standards, rules and procedures exist for a reason. Making exceptions to a standard process should only be done in rare occasions and require a convincing reason for them. If you become lax and just start granting exceptions willy-nilly, then your standards are moot. People cannot just stomp their feet and say that justifies their demand to have a pony…
I agree completely, G. Mr. Sunahara has what he requested. He’s being egged on by birthers who hope that what he had is not what it is, and this is confirmed, to me anyhow, with this request to be in the room while the document is being copied.
I agree with the defense and I hope they send Mr. Sunahara and his birther freinds packing, frankly.
Richcares:
Yes, this demand on Sunahara’s part is what leads me believe the motion will be rejected.
Does anyone know for certain whether the birther whose user name is “Danae” over at freerepublic.com received a certified copy or an uncertified copy of her long form. She told State Registrar Onaka that she needed a long form for genealogical research as I remember and she got a long form from him, but was it certified or uncertified is the question.
one of Haskins first stories on this was
“WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA’S IDENTITY STOLEN?”
then Haskins found that Obama was not named Virginia Sunahara, bummer, no ID theft. so what is Haskins up to, he won’t tell us that is untll the Hawaii suit fails. (maybe he will never tell us)
“but was it certified or uncertified is the question.”
it was not certified
I’ve been looking at 338-18 for some time, and I can’t even figure that they’re obligated to issue a certified copy of a birth certificate. It only says who can be issued a copy, but doesn’t mandate the format, and doesn’t even say that they must be issued one. Obviously they do so as a matter of policy, but there wouldn’t appear to be any kind of requirement that they do so.
The citing of UIPA doesn’t even seem to be relevant. My reading of it was that only the person who is named can make the request, and the likely outcome of that is to receive a photocopy or other facsimile. Also – I can’t find anything that entitles anyone to be present during the production of any document.
Granted – when I’ve gotten several vital records, there were produced right in front of me at a computer terminal and printed on a laser printer, so I guess I was there to see the rather limited process. I never got to the see the original documents, which were archived somewhere. What I got was pulled from a database of image scans of the original documents.
Danae told me in an email that Dr. Onaka asked her whether she needed a certified or an uncertified copy, and that she said uncertified.
Part of the problem is that I linked to only one of the two statutes. The other is:
338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, 17; RL 1955, 57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, 19; HRS 338-13; am L 1978, c 49, 1]
I’ve seen that before, but it’s been a while. Thanks.
So they’re obligated to issue certified copies. Period. Anything beyond that (allowing someone to view the process, getting a photocopy of the original file, etc) would be at the discretion of the Director of Health.
Duncan Sunahara was given a certified copy, the COLB. Why Haskins is pushing this issue as a birther case is really wierd. Wierd cases should be rejected.
I’m still a little confused as to how the birthers think this will at all help their delu… er case?
I’m still a little confused as to how the birthers think this will at all help their delu… er “case?”
Baby born on same day as Obama, so Obama stole the baby’s Identity, got it? They will not accept Obama was born in Hawaii and any piece of crap that suggets otherwise is cheered on in Biferstan. Zen Budhists love pain, Birthers love failure.
They’ll use the denial as one more excuse to scream conspiracy and treason and issue death threats.
UNCERTIFIED Copy.
That is all Danae received.
Obama’s LFBC is the ONLY “certified” exception we have seen.
Exactly. And the Certified COLB meets that obligation. It *is* their official only standard and has been for well over a decade.
As you noted, anything beyond that is NOT an obligation and merely allowable at their discretion. “No” is a valid response within one’s purview of discretion. So is expecting a clear and convincing reason to justify receiving anything beyond what the official obligation requires.
Please see revisions to the article and let me know what you think.
I suppose they have dreams that if they gain entry to the vault, they can peek in the book at Obama’s bound form (though the separation in the numbers likely means that his and Sunahara’s are not in the same volume). They can then come out screaming that they saw Birthplace: Kenya and the copy is a fraud. Given that Hawaii will certainly put security in place to prevent that, the more likely scenario is that they find some smudge on Sunahara’s record and then scream that Hawaii DOH is corrupt and incompetent, so we shouldn’t believe them about Obama.
All of which no one outside of birtherdom will pay any attention to.
Do they actually think the DOH is just going to let them in the vault and let them run free? Go ahead, look around, let us know when you’re done…
Actually we’re talking birthers here. That’s probably exactly what they think.
I agree with Joe Acerbic’s comment: “They’ll use the denial as one more excuse to scream conspiracy and treason and issue death threats.”
I also think (IANAB) that they suspect that the COLB was manipulated by the evil Hawaii Department of Health to alter the certificate number and that if they can see the original document in the vault they can prove that.
It is also possible that they think that Virginia Sunahara is actually President of the United States and that Obama is dead. Hard to tell.
Thanks G, that’s what I thought but it didn’t make sense in “Danae’s” version of the story that she said that Dr. Onaka asked her whether she wanted a certified copy or an uncertified copy and that “Danae” selected uncertified because she would receive it quicker.
That’s my recollection of events as she told them. She made it seem as if she could have received either version but chose to get the uncertified version in a shorter period of time.
The reality is the goal is not simply to get a copy of her original – if they wanted that they could have asked for an uncertified photocopy like Danae was given, said it was for a scrapbook or any other random reason, and probably gotten one. It wouldn’t shock me if they were offered that but it wasn’t put on their video.
In their suit they not only ask for a copy, they insist on getting in-person access to the vault, witnessing of the copy, access to any and all microfiche and other original records. After all no one – now that they have the COLB – is really arguing that the original will have different information. They want vault access and feel like this might be an excuse.
Had they sued and said all they wanted was a certified copy, maybe they’d have been accommodated. But they make it clear thats not emough. No court is going to grant them access to the vault, and when it’s denied Haskins can continue begging for money saying that it’s clear by denying vault access they’re intentionally trying to HIDE records
I am always amused that birthers think Kenya keeps their birth certificates in Hawaii’s records vault.
I’m going to spend some time reviewing the defense response I saw and then post thoughts. I’ll probably have to wait until after the wife has gone to bed to sneak enough time to devote proper contemplation and thought to my reply.
Yeah, that is the delusional dream they are really attempting here…
IANAL and I don’t know what the proper legal interpretation of the statutes is. Personally, I have no sympathy for Sunahara unless he can tell me what exactly is the information he wants regarding his deceased sister and why a certified copy that he watches being made is the only way or even the best way he can get that.
This is what is really going on. The see pursuing a losing cause as one more reason to obsfucate and sow seeds of doubt when there really aren’t any.
Look, they are going to scream and shout the same excuses regardless. So there is ZERO reason to pander and give in to such tactics. The lesson has been demonstrated numerous times already – nothing other than Obama hauled off in chains (or worse) will satisfy these folks. Anything less results in the same shouting and excuses. Any foolish attempt at appeasement serves very little purpose – they simply will endlessly shift the goalposts and even worse – will keep ressurecting the same moldy lies over and over again, no matter how soundly they are debunked or accomodated.
The only reasonable course of action is to show as little tolerance to their nonsense and antics as possible. They’ve earned every inch of “NO” as a valid response and have only themselves to blame for any situation that treats them with only the strictest compliance and minimum leeway.
Kowtowing to their insincere picking at nits only encourages them.
Here’s what strikes me as ridiculous about this lawsuit, and I’m surprised Dean didn’t figure this out himself. If the court rules that Duncan cannot have a certified copy of his sister’s LFBC, birfers will whine that it is all a conspiracy to cover up Obama’s real identity and birth. If Duncan gets a copy of his sister’s LFBC, birfers will look for every pixel of difference between hers and Obama’s and declare the differences as evidence of a cover up of Obama’s real identity and birth. They will also find every pixel that is the same between the two LFBCs and declare the similarities as further evidence of a cover up of Obama’s identity and birth. Regardless of the outcome of this case, birfers win. Why did Dean et al. even waste their money on this when it is obvious that all possible outcomes are proof of a cover up of Obama’s identity and birth? /snark
We have more than just her recollection of events to confirm that it was uncertified. The actual copy she received was put on display for awhile. So I’ve seen it, as have many others. Right now, I’m on limited bursts of time to access here and can’t chase it down. I’m sure someone else can point you to a link of the image so you can see for yourself.
It was clearly an uncertified copy and therefore useful as nothing more than a keepsake bit of information. There is ZERO question about that.
I can see reason for the Sunahara’s to politely ask if they can have one just like that, but that is NOT what their lawsuit (via Dean Haskins) requests. No, they had to go overboard and demand ONLY a certified LFBC and the ability to have people in the vault observing it being made. Absolutely over-the-top ludicrous.
I think the courts have every right to deny it. Part of the legitimate discrepancy of how people react to the leeway they have to make exceptions stems from how the requestor behaves. Make a reasonable request and support that reason and one is likely to find accomodation. However, if you start off abrasive and threatening and then shoot straight for extremely over-the-top demands via filing a lawsuit, you are just hardening hearts against your cause and deserve no benefit of the doubt nor sympathy.
If the “real” goal here was just to get that info for the Sunahara’s, they could have handled the whole ordeal and even their “demands” very differently. If they get completely shut down and flat out denied, then they’ve brought that upon themselves.
As I’ve said before, trying to persuade under the mere option of some mere discretionary leeway is a much different argument than claiming that the minimum obligations of the law have not been satisfied. They have.
So I fail to see how they can win their argument or why the courts would have to even bother with offering throwing them any more reasonable and lesser bone to accomodate them, as that isn’t what they asked for.
I seriously doubt that would have been accomodated either.
I mean, what possible justification could they make that a mere photocopy wasn’t sufficient for their needs?
If it is for some “official” purpose, then the certified COLB they already received already FULLY satisfies that.
If it is merely for some curious scrapbook keepsake type situation, then the mere photocopy FULLY satisfies that.
I have YET to see ANY argument or reason made for any scenario that justifies that they must have not only a copy of the “original” but that it *must* be in certified form as well…
So, it completely fails the test of being a justified exception at all.
Obama’s exception needs to be stressed as that – an extreme and unique exception, with some extreme and unique circumstances to even make *that* justified.
The real reason, as has been said before, is to establish a precedent, not necessarily in the strict legal sense.
Ah, you let us do that? Then clearly there is no imaginable reason not to do the same thing with the president’s records.
Oh, he won’t agree to that? ZOMG WHAT IS HE HIDING!?
I’m going with “never” on this.
Again, I gotta agree with you this, richCares.
They are fishing for anomolies. They want witness the coping so they can see the process from vault copy in the bound volume to finished product. Then they will compare ot to what they think the process was for President Obama’s LFBC and nitpick and differences. Also they will give it to “experts” like Paul Irey (in December he said he was expecting a recently obtained LFBC for him to examine) so he can show that the type face doesn’t match the President’s.
G, can you explain to me the difference between a regular copy and certified copy? Under what circumstances is a certified copy required?
The certified copy is, well, certified, with a seal and stamped signature. One might need one to get a passport, Social Security card, driver’s license, etc. I can’t think of anything one would use it for regarding someone who died 50 years ago. The curiosity/sentimental purposes of seeing a paper with a dead sibling’s name could be served just as well by a simple photocopy.
Ha! Well, Hawaii *is* the Switzerland of birth certificates, is it not? ;-}
Maybe the Discovery channel should do a “How It’s Made” show.
…or even stuff that doesn’t suggest it………..
James777, I remember that exchange on free republic – it was an AHA!!! You can get the “long form” – see, I did!!!”
I didn’t believe her, frankly. I would not make any sense to get an uncertified anything when you can get a certified one, and what was the rush to get it…..to show it on free republic. As I recall, you didn’t believe her and I didn’t either, but they banned me from free republic so I coudn’t comment. All I said was President Obama instead of Obarka or some other such butchering of the president’s name and ZAP!!! That Jim Robinson is sooooo sensitive…………
Thanks Scientist. It does seem beyond necessity for a brother to have a certified copy a sibling who died over 50 years ago.
I’m fairly certain that if a birther was allowed into a vault holding Obama’s original BC, they would try to steal, destroy or deface it.
“Make him get born again! We were!”
Gee golly, where do you think they might have such an obscure document?
Actually there is a certified copy image of the Danae certificate, but I have doubts as to its authenticity:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/2011-hawaii-long-form-appears/
The non-certified version is here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/long-form-sighted/
My comment from Danae wasn’t to whether the document was certified or not, but rather the apparent willingness of Onaka to give her a certified copy way back when.
My presumption is that the Hawaii court will rule “correctly” whatever that turns out to be. My opinion is that they will rule in Sunahara’s favor. However, If they don’t then I presume that they are right.
In any case, a win here is not a birther win. Orly Taitz getting out of that speeding citation is not a birther win. Just so’s you know.
anyone know when they changed to the short form only birth certificate?
They said they went paperless in 2001. I think before that they had some kind of short form, but it wasn’t like the current short form, and it wasn’t the only form available.
I recall seeing a computer printed (dot matrix) birth form on bank note style security paper. I forget the date, probably in the late 1990’s.
Of course if you go back before photocopy machines, all the forms were short forms — hand typed onto the certificate on demand.
Yeah, I’m banned too for being a “troll.” I was always respectful and just a little too on top of my facts for some of the “senstive” souls over at freerepublic!
They couldn’t handle the truth.
Sorry, I thought you were going to say that Apuzzo’s was the Swiss Cheese of legal briefs.
Darn. I gotta go repent.
Sure, simply put, a “Certified copy” makes it an official, authenticated state document and therefore, useful for any official identificatin purposes. It has to be accepted by all states due to FFAC. The signature of the official in charge and whatever seal & watermarking are necessary to authenticate it are added to the form to make it “certified”.
A certified BC will be accepted as identification at any license bureau, for passport applications, etc. Anywhere that you need to provide “official” proof of a BC, you need a certified copy. For understandable reasons, such things need to confirm to official standards and formats in order to be approved for use as “certified copies”. Without standards to go on, their authenticity would be in doubt and it would become very confusing to tell proper forms from frauds.
Without the certification, you just have a “copy”. In other words, it contains all the info, but it is simply a keepsake. It doesn’t matter that the format no longer conforms to existing standards, or even any standards at all. It simply is a copy of whatever document it came from looked like at the time. So, it provides info, but only as personal value to the owner. It would not be accepted as a form of authenticated identity document in official purposes and therefore, simply has no official use. By definition of being non-certified, it is simply providing a copy of information in a form that otherwise does not adhere nor conform to an official document’s standards.
I hope that helps to explain both the difference and purpose.
Agreed. I too seriously doubt the authenticity of her “certified” claim. To date, I’ve seen ZERO evidence to back up that it really was “certified”.
I simply think in typical Birther fashion, she simply tried to fake the certified part and made up that portion of her story.
I believe it was in 2000.
What canI say, I try to draw the line at discussing people’s underwear. But aren’t legal briefs those long ones that these days we call boxer briefs?
The memo on the policy change was dated May 15, 2001.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF
According to their official press release, the policy for providing ONLY the computer abstract COLB, was issued on May 15, 2001.
The computer generated COLB form may have been available before that time. However, per this memo, it became the ONLY official format available as of May 15, 2001.
He does have a legal right to it. The Hawaii Dept of Health would have issued one to him easily, but he asked for more than that.
If everything were reset so that Duncan Sunahara didn’t go along this path of all these nutty requests, if he were to come off the street, fill an application, and pay the fee, he would have no problem getting a certified copy of the COLB.
There are several images on the internet of versions of the computer generated printout abstract from the 1990s. I think it’s safe to say that it was one of their common formats at the time.
Here is the link, from the HI DOH website:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF
I see great minds think alike! I was in the middle of looking it up and posting, as you were posting this… LOL!
There are some extreme cases, of which Hawaii isn’t one.
There’s the Texas forms where several agencies want to know the name of the attendant. Texas still issues the abstract, but the State Dept wants to see the “long form” for passport applications. There’s been quite a bit of controversy over whether or those born in Texas and delivered by midwives could get passports or passport cards. There was a settlement with the State Dept. Quite a few people were originally denied US passports even when their delivering midwives weren’t on a list of suspect names. This was very important in the border region after policy was changed such that one really needed a passport (or other WHTI-compliant document) to reenter the US from Mexico. In the past, those born in the US freely went to Mexico to shop and visit relatives, and generally only needed a photo ID and a certified birth certificate.
The California Certified Abstract of Birth didn’t contain an embossed seal, and there was a rash of forgeries.
Finally, there’s Puerto Rico birth certificates, where it’s been well known that legitimately issued birth certificates have been used to establish new identities for otherwise undocumented Hispanic immigrants. Some birth certificates were sold on the black market by the people named on the certificates, while others were stolen – where thieves knew that schools and other offices kept real birth certificates on file – then sold on the black market. It was a culture where parents would order several copies, knowing that every school or youth organization would ask to receive and hold onto a certified BC copy. They basically invalidated every birth certificate issued before a certain date. The State Dept and every DMV in the country is aware of the cutoff date for which the old birth certificates are no longer considered valid. Schools no longer ask to hold onto birth certificates. They might make a photocopy, but they don’t keep the actual government-issued certificate. I heard they worked overtime to produce copies, and Puerto Ricans ordering birth certificates from the US mainland were waiting up to several months to receive the new birth certificates that they ordered.
They DID give him a certified COLB.
He is asking for a “certified LFBC”…and demanding his representation to be present as they make that unique and special exception copy just for him…
Yeah, even though it became the ONLY version available as of 5/15/2001, there seems to have been several references and examples of pretty much that same COLB format from before that date.
From a technical perspective, this would make perfect sense. You wouldn’t switch to “only” the computer generated COLB until it had been in use for a sufficient amount of time, in order to ensure that it was not only generating properly, but also working properly and that people had gotten used to not only the form itself, but any behind-the-scenes process changes involved with it.
Agreed. And we’ve covered those particular extreme situations (TX, CA at least) on numerous occasions here in the past.
The important point is that HI is NOT one of those “exception” states. There is NO credible reason to question the value or use of the HI COLB.
Therefore, those other state situations are completely irrelevant to the HI COLB and its integrity as an official document.
I want to get a copy of my father’s birth certificate. He was born in New York City in 1912 and died in 1975.
I was told that I am entitled to get a copy, but first I have to provide the New York City Department of Health with a copy (not a photocopy) of his death certificate.
Do I have to order his death certificate first, and after I receive that I can order his birth certificate. They will not accept his record in the Social Security Death Index as proof that he is dead.
I understand that, as well as his demands for more than just that. I’m just saying that it would be trivial for him to receive a copy of the COLB. Someone asked what was the necessity of getting a certified copy for a sister who died 50 years ago. I was just trying to indicate that it wouldn’t have been much of an issue with the Hawaii Dept of Health regardless of what the motive was for getting a copy.
The NYC application only mentions two categories of people (other than attorneys) who can order birth certificates – the person named on the certificate or a parent. Not even a spouse, sibling, or child can order a copy. Hawaii has a much longer list, which includes children or grandchildren (i.e. descendants) of the person named, as well as a spouse. As with Duncan Sunahara, a sibling qualifies as someone with a “common ancestor”.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vr/birth1.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vr/death1.pdf
It sounds like birth records in NYC become public records once the person named on the certificate is deceased.
I have a hard time succinctly describing what the issue was with the Puerto Rico birth certificates. The following makes it clear in just a few sentences:
http://www.prfaa.com/docs/prfaafactsheetfaq.pdf
There once was a problem with California birth certificates. They were considered public records, and anyone off the street could order a copy. Apparently vital records office staff weren’t even allowed to ask for ID. A few people randomly found enough information about someone born in California to obtain birth certificates and start a new identity with those certificates. That all changed sometime around 2001. A birth certificate is still considered a public record, but someone who isn’t in a certain category can only order an “informational” copy that is clearly marked as such. The State Dept, Social Security Administration, state DMVs, etc. won’t accept such a copy as a “foundation document”.
At least until 2008 anyone off the street could order a full copy of a California marriage certificate without having a relationship or legal need to have it. That also changed. I’m sort of wondering what someone could do with a marriage certificate, since it’s not exactly an “identity document”.
Thanks for clarifying that, ypw.
Yes, very clear . . . So is it true that certified copies are only available to family members, or the individual named on the b.c.?
Well, there is a section of the HI rules on this that is always cited, which lists all the acceptible permutations for getting someone’s document. Unless someone here has it handy and can beat me to it (please do), I’ll add that to my list tonight of things to dig up and post.
“he would have no problem getting a certified copy of the COLB.”
.
he actually did get a COLB, but he demands a long form with conditions,
Arthur,
Actually, the section I want was easier to track down than I thought! The good Doctor Conspiracy had the forsight to make a hotlink out of the applicable section in THIS VERY BLOG ARTICLE!!!
Click on the hotlink in the article for 338-18.
Doc C –
Found it – The Motion to Dismiss:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/sunahara-v-hi-doh-motion-to-dismiss/
Please read, if you haven’t already. My position is in support of what the defense has stated. It seems well reasoned to me.
Notice their main reason for dismiss is for failure to state a claim for which they are entitled to such relief. I agree, as what the plantiffs are asking for is what I’ve been arguing all along – an extraordinary exception, without ANY explicit justification of why the COLB they received is insufficient and their excessive demands for a “certified” LFBC must not only be obtained, but also witnessed.
Page 2 & 3 confirm what I’ve been saying – the HI DOH *did* fully comply and provide them a COLB already. As the Defense argues, their actions have already satisfied not only 338-13 (a) & (c), but also 338-18 *and* 338-12 as well (they get to explaining that one later on). So they cover why they feel that the brother’s direct & tangible interest as a relative has already been fully satisfied in compliance under the law with the COLB they gave him.
They also go into explaining HRS Chapter 92-F and several of its sections (13 in particular – see starting on page 5) and how that applies.
So, my position stands – I think the court will agree with the Defense and end up granting this dismissal.
In summary – the COLB already satisfies the plaintiff’s tangible interest and therefore, the HI DOH has met its obligations to them. The plaintiff has offered ZERO justification for why any exception for further documentation must be granted…and therefore *HAS* failed to state a claim, as they simply are NOT ENTITLED to the relief they are requesting.
Therefore, I feel the Defense has already made a solid and simple case of why NO certified “LFBC” should be granted.
Is this the thing that Dishonest Dean was making a brouhaha about?
Whichever way it goes, I still fail to see the connection to Obama.
Many have asked Dean the same question without getting an answer. One part of Dean’s motivation may be that he just wants to stir attention and trouble and sees challenging the HDoH over their birth record policies as a good way to do that.
Thanks, G.
I asked Dean Haskins earlier on what he had based his claim that we already know the DoH was violating procedures back in 1961. He has never backed up that claim. I still think he was using Jerome Corsi’s lie about what was in the 1955 article by Charles Bennett on vital statistics. I noticed he never answered that question.
Doc
I have to disagree with you on this one. 338-13(c) clearly defines what “copies” means in 338-13(a) and gives the Director of Health the power to make that determination. The certified COLB met the law, period.
Agreed. That is how I see it too.
I probably should have said “completely fulfilled the requirements of the law.”
And in an alternate universe:
WOW!!!!!!! This is amazing! IMPEACH OBAMA!!!!!
I have to admit, until this presser, I HAD to give credence to the possibility the Long Form released was real, that the SS documents were suspect, but that without a forensic police investigation it could not be proven!
Given the all the attacks I have suffered, and the fact that through Corsi, the Arizona Sheriff HAS my real birth documents. Considering they are published in Corsi’s books,
I CONSIDER MYSELF AND MY REAL HAWAIIAN DOCUMENTS FULLY AND COMPLETELY VINDICATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
posted on Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:50:02 PM by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
——————————————————————————–
As I predicted:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=22446
Me too! Dean Haskins is blaming Orly. 😆
I am definitely NAL and are thus cofnused. Does this mean that the complaint was “converted” into the defense’s motion to dismiss, and that is what was granted?
And is that 100 or 101, or is this one off the books?
That is how I read it – that the Court simply agreed with the reasoning within the defense’s Motion to Dismiss and that was the end of the case right there.
Good question. It was more of a “stealth” Birther case…or at least one that Dean started off trying to make a Birther case and then just ended up with nothing but Sunahara to put forward…
I think it needs to be accounted for in the overall tally, but maybe with a special asterik or category of its own…
My children were born in Texas. When we applied for passports, we got certified copies, the computer-generated abstract “short forms”. I had to order my ancient one from out of state and also got a computer-generated version. We breezed through with the passports, no questions asked. This was maybe 12-15 years ago, because my husband and I have since renewed ours.
“Concern” litigation.
Were it in earnest, it would have been a dignified test case.
I think it’s been the last decade.
http://www.consumertraveler.com/columns/still-no-passport-if-you-were-delivered-by-a-midwife-in-texas/
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-12-18/news/hispanics-delivered-by-border-midwives-are-having-trouble-getting-u-s-passports/
There was even a settlement over this by the State Dept. The settlement agreement notes dates between April 8, 2003 and August 14, 2009 when the State Dept was denying passport applications.
http://travel.state.gov/_res/docs/pdf/Castelano_Final_Notice_English_3.pdf
Agreed. Good way to classify it.
It is shameful but not surprising that the name on the class action suit is hispanic. There are voter ID laws here. You have to show your driver’s license in order to get a ballot. At the DMV, there are signs posted that say you must provide a copy of your birth certificate to get a driver’s license. I have never had to show one, and neither have my kids. There is rampant discrimination.
FYI…Jack Ryan has an updated Birther Scorecard up. The AZ and NY cases have also been dismissed and Sibley’s case in DC has been denied. 112-0 on the original cases.
Good to know! Thanks for the update heads-up!
The State Dept doesn’t go into detail on their website, but they have released info to many passport acceptance facilities. They’re cryptic that **some** abstracts may not be acceptable, but don’t say which states, counties, or cities.
Here’s a passport acceptance facility (City Hall – Bonney Lake, WA) that’s more descriptive of the issues. They even have a list of specific counties in Texas, and I’m guessing these are all along the border region.
http://www.ci.bonney-lake.wa.us/section_government/municipal_court/passports.shtml
Ooops! That would be 101-0, 11 pending.
According to the Birther Summit website, the judge has dismissed Sunahara v. HDoH.
I’m sure that Dean will be here soon, to acknowledge the error of his ways.
Any . . . day . . . now.
Wow. I missed that one.
More good news of dismissal: Native and Natural Born Citizenship reports: AZ – Allen v Obama – Dismissed NBC defined, Minor does not apply. See link at bottom of this web page.
Yep, those counties are along the Mexican border.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.censusfinder.com/_derived/maptx.htm_txt_txmapsmall.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.censusfinder.com/maptx.htm&h=964&w=1009&sz=76&tbnid=SOZMOOTYkYRwgM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=94&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtexas%2Bcounty%2Bmap%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=texas+county+map&docid=Q4EGaULzRkdAXM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PGBZT5q9CfGDsgK3k73iDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q9QEwAg&dur=49
Brouhaha?
(Yet another Firesign reference?)
He is living in the same old place.
I never heard of the situation with the Hudson County, NJ birth certificates, so I looked it up.
http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/full_stories_home/2411086/article-Hard-to-get-birth-certificates-in-Hudson-Assemblyman-Prieto-urges-local-satellite-office-to-save-residents-trip-to-Trenton
Apparently someone in the office was selling birth certificates under the table, and the county no longer issues them as a result. Apparently everyone got a free copy around the time of registration, so there are people who never had to pay for a birth certificate before – until they were invalidated.
People in NJ are complaining because applications by mail from the state need to be notarized or require a VitalChek fee. Or they can get a copy from the state in Trenton. There are also cities in the county with their own vital records offices, although people are still complaining about spending money on birth certificates.
Oh, are those my cues?
Mike Dunford of The Fogbow provides an eyewitness detailed breakdown of the happenings in yesterday’s Court matter on this case:
The story is broken down into two separate articles:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/sunahara-v-hi-doh-hearing-notes-part-1/
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/sunahara-v-hi-doh-hearing-notes/