I think this is where they're going, Loren. They're not gonna' get there, but this is their latest moment of OMG. Any. Day. Now.

Sweet zombie Jesus.

So Dean's masterstroke is built around a girl who was born the same day as Obama, but in a different hospital, and in a different city?

This is getting to be insulting to other conspiracy theorists.

Are you referring to the Nordyke twins BC?

I agree. From a genealogical point of view, I rather support relatives being able to see familial documentation.

I kinda hope he *does* get his sister's long-form. I think it's a waste to litigate it, and I know the Birthers aren't going to be happy with the result, but I have little reason to keep his sister's document from him.

Yes. And while talking about this with friends here I've learned that their own original birth certificates (from about that time, +/- a few years either way) are also white print on black paper documents.

Well, you are correct, sir, because there's a 2009 WND article written by that blowhard Corsi which refers to the copies of the Nordyke twins' BC, obtained by their mom, as photostats. So that's that, I'd say.

Agreed. If someone, for whatever reason, wanted access to all of the department's records, anyone but a birther would be content with a certified copy, and not demand to witness the department locate and copy the records.

HRS 92F-11 (UIPA), which is cited in the prayer for relief, provides for inspection and copying of the records; it does not require the copying to be witnessed.

The black background ones are negative photostats.

I just looked at the policy memo that's available on the Hawaii DoH website, and which details the change in policy for issuing copies of records.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/ ... 5_2001.PDF

I think the key phrase in that memo is probably:
"This change in Department of Health policy is made pursuant to statutory restrictions on the disclosure of certain items of information contained in vital records..."
Given that the policy was changed in mid-May, 2001, I'm guessing that the "statutory restrictions" in question are probably related to HIPAA. Didn't the privacy rules go into effect right around then?

Ironic URL: xxx-http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/was-baby-virginia-sunaharas-identity-stolen-by-dean-haskins-birtherreport-com/

Haskins stole Virginia's identity?

I'm of two minds about this. While I agree that it's nice to be able to provide relatives with the original information, besides HIPPA, there's also a financial reason that states have gone to COLBs and/or paperless records. Given current and future budget problems facing states, I'm not sure that I favor a complete open door policy for original documentation (absent a more compelling reason than mere curiosity to see every detail).

Maybe I'm straining at gnats and there would never be that much demand, but I see little purpose in a policy that specifies one document but allows for more or less everyday exceptions.

ORYR comment:

Whhaaa??

??? There is only one Department of Health in all of Honolulu. Why would Honolulu Hospitals send their records to somewhere "outside" Honolulu?

FWIW, what's the origin of the Birther mythology surrounding Virginia?

A couple of significant dates:

May 13, 2011 - P&E posts summary from "Researcher," likely Ladysforest
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/13/ ... 61-010641/

May 17, 2011 - Corsi writes WND article, citing P&E
http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/300201/

More from Ladysforest
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.c ... h-results/







'Oh, my first theory was completely wrong? Here, let me move those goalposts...'

I'm not saying they shouldn't CHARGE for it. Make it $5 or $10 per request. Ten bucks certainly covers the expense of photocopying a piece of paper, and avoids people who are merely curious.

Remember, Obama's birth certificate gave his parents' ages, their birthplaces, his mom's address, and their jobs. None of that is on a COLB. And that's information that a genealogist would legitimately like to have.

Yes and yes. I think you may be spot-on, Mike. Going forward from about that time, HIPAA definitely added health care privacy requirements. As a general proposition, privacy rights concerning patient records extend past death.

Specifically within the HIPAA context, rights of access to the medical records of a decedent are subject to the contours of health care privacy (e.g., authorizing access by health care personal representatives) and probate law (e.g., generally authorizing access by the personal representative of the decedent's estate).

That "Imo" means "in my opinion," doesn't it, Charles?

Well sir, your opinion isn't worth a pile of flea dirt half the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Take your lunatic birther opinion and stick it where the sun don't shine, pal.

I don;t think it really has to do with cost of doing so, I think it more has to do with TIME and STAFF to process these types of requests. Its now been 10 years that Hawaii has gone computerized, so all records are now in a DB. Its much easier to press a few keys and have a printer do the work now.

the Paper copies as we have seen and heard are stored in BOUND books and in a vault on the property. That means it could take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour for a staffer to :
1) take the request
2) go to the vault (of which she may not even have access to and have to rely on the director to open)
3) Director then has to go through the bound book to locate said record.
4) take the book to a photocopy machine and then make a photocopy

And seeing as these are paper original records (some may be as old as a hundred years), they may need to be handled with great care and can cost even more time.


As a State, would you want to pay someone to handle these type of requests that would take so long to do (and only processing maybe 10 requests a day), or just pay someone to press a button on a computer, print, sign, stamp. emboss and send the customer on their way in less than 10 minutes (and process more than a 100 records a day)?


we already know that the DOH has reduced their staff and have furlough days to budget concerns. And that birthers have been nothing but money wasters for the already understaffed department.

Cost factors, though not insignificant, are not uniquely applicable to vital statistics, which is the topic here. If we're going to argue the economics, we need to revisit the wisdom of sunshine laws in general (e.g., FOIA and state equivalents). Personally, I'm for sunshine.

I think it is suspicious that a balloon falls slower than a steam iron. I'm a moron.

Can we be friends now, Charlie?

I would say for a "genealogical" interest that said records can be changed to be "public" after so many years. Say after 75 years, you can have access to the birth records of an individual as part of the a public open records policy.

But that would take a change in the laws.

I for one would love to see the birth records of my great grandparents, who were the first Japanese/Okinawan children of the first immigrants to Hawaii. My granparents were Nisei, and my parent was Sansei. And of course the records of their brothers and sisters (If I counted it right, my Japanese immigrant side of my family I'm looking at over 10 great grand aunts and uncles and 20 grand uncles and aunts, and not including all of their children)

Yes; also, it is the Department of HEALTH, not the Department of Satisfying Idle Curiosities. While not discounting the importance of open records or vital statistics research, the department really does have other things to do.

In context

My Hawai'ian BC, pre-statehood but less than a decade before The President's birth, is a small black square with white type. The one I requested 15 years ago was 8.5x11 but also black background with white type.

Health is the policy reason for the existence of the agency, but in return for its services, the agency receives information that is otherwise private and belongs to the individuals who provide it and, to a lesser extent, their families.

I don't see how any expense or time problems that would be caused by transparency aren't easily remedied by charging individuals for the actual cost of acquiring and preserving the original while copying it, with exceptions for records requests that are in the public interest or for people who can't afford it if the records are theirs and the purpose is not vexatious.

FOIA acts along similar lines, with the burden on one seeking free copies to show that it is in the public interest.