birth certificate
Jul. 23rd, 2009 10:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacI'm going to wade into the fetid waters of the Obama birth certificate controversy.
Let us specify that the people who claim that there's some diabolical conspiracy, hatched in 1961 and today including the (Republican) Governor of Hawaii, to manufacture fake certificates to cover up non-wealthy teenage college student Stanley Ann Dunham flying from Hawaii to Kenya just to have her baby there and then returning to Hawaii to plant misleading birth announcements in the local newspapers - that these people are nuts.
The problem is that the response "they're nuts" covers up a question that genuinely puzzles me about this, and it may be difficult to raise the question without being incorrectly taken as subscribing to the nuts theory. I'm just asking the question.
And that question deals with the observation that the document released online is in fact apparently neither the original birth certificate nor a photocopy of it, although various nut-debunking websites say that it is the original. Look at the bottom where it says "(Rev. 11/01) LASER". No document from 1961 would say that. That's even ignoring the typeface, which doesn't look 1961 either. It also appears to be stamped "2007" on the back. This is clearly not the document made at the time of Obama's birth, but one generated at a later time.
At the bottom of the document, it says, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of birth in any court proceeding," and obviously such a copy is what the State of Hawaii issues to people wanting copies of their birth certificates for passport purposes or whatever, and it is accepted as such. (It also says "Any alterations invalidate this certificate," and perhaps the blacking out of the certificate number does so, but that's another question.) However, "prima facie" doesn't mean "conclusive proof"; it means "on first sight; in the absence of reason to challenge."
So the question is: what happened to the original birth certificate, and why hasn't it been released, and why are people claiming that this is it? A quote at the Snopes debunking says "state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest in it." OK, but this is, for legal purposes, a certified certificate (yea, even a certificated certified certificate of certification), and Obama obviously received it and released it, so why hasn't he received and released the original?
A clue seems to lie in the cryptic wording "[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]" at the bottom of the certificated certified certificate. Anyone who's worked at a law school library, as I have, will immediately guess that HRS stands for Hawaii Revised Statutes, and here they are.
Section 338-13(b) says "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." Copies of the contents of.
Paragraph (a) distinguishes among "a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." This is not the certificate, nor even a copy of the certificate. This is a copy of the contents of the certificate (or more precisely a web-based scan, but the nut-debunking websites say that the original, by which they evidently mean the original of this scan, has been inspected and verified). Or more likely a copy of part of the contents thereof. My birth certificate, of which I have a certified photostat copy of the original, is not from Hawaii but does have a lot of other information as well as everything the Obama copy has, including most relevantly the name and address of the hospital of birth, as well as the signatures of my mother as informant and the attending physician. My copy was given me by my parents, and I believe it's the original copy they received when it was filed, soon after my birth.
On to 338-19. It says, "The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original."
So is the original birth certificate too damaged to photocopy or even take a photograph of, or to pull out of the file? That'd have to be awfully badly damaged, considering how gently photocopies may be made these days. So it seems puzzling. And if it is the case, then why hasn't someone simply said so? Why do I have to delve into the cryptic "beware of the leopard" filing cabinet of the Hawaii Revised Statutes in order to get even this much of a clue?
It's nuts to postulate a conspiracy theory on the basis of this. But it is not nuts to point out that the released document is not the original birth certificate, or to ask what happened to the original.
Let us specify that the people who claim that there's some diabolical conspiracy, hatched in 1961 and today including the (Republican) Governor of Hawaii, to manufacture fake certificates to cover up non-wealthy teenage college student Stanley Ann Dunham flying from Hawaii to Kenya just to have her baby there and then returning to Hawaii to plant misleading birth announcements in the local newspapers - that these people are nuts.
The problem is that the response "they're nuts" covers up a question that genuinely puzzles me about this, and it may be difficult to raise the question without being incorrectly taken as subscribing to the nuts theory. I'm just asking the question.
And that question deals with the observation that the document released online is in fact apparently neither the original birth certificate nor a photocopy of it, although various nut-debunking websites say that it is the original. Look at the bottom where it says "(Rev. 11/01) LASER". No document from 1961 would say that. That's even ignoring the typeface, which doesn't look 1961 either. It also appears to be stamped "2007" on the back. This is clearly not the document made at the time of Obama's birth, but one generated at a later time.
At the bottom of the document, it says, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of birth in any court proceeding," and obviously such a copy is what the State of Hawaii issues to people wanting copies of their birth certificates for passport purposes or whatever, and it is accepted as such. (It also says "Any alterations invalidate this certificate," and perhaps the blacking out of the certificate number does so, but that's another question.) However, "prima facie" doesn't mean "conclusive proof"; it means "on first sight; in the absence of reason to challenge."
So the question is: what happened to the original birth certificate, and why hasn't it been released, and why are people claiming that this is it? A quote at the Snopes debunking says "state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest in it." OK, but this is, for legal purposes, a certified certificate (yea, even a certificated certified certificate of certification), and Obama obviously received it and released it, so why hasn't he received and released the original?
A clue seems to lie in the cryptic wording "[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]" at the bottom of the certificated certified certificate. Anyone who's worked at a law school library, as I have, will immediately guess that HRS stands for Hawaii Revised Statutes, and here they are.
Section 338-13(b) says "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." Copies of the contents of.
Paragraph (a) distinguishes among "a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." This is not the certificate, nor even a copy of the certificate. This is a copy of the contents of the certificate (or more precisely a web-based scan, but the nut-debunking websites say that the original, by which they evidently mean the original of this scan, has been inspected and verified). Or more likely a copy of part of the contents thereof. My birth certificate, of which I have a certified photostat copy of the original, is not from Hawaii but does have a lot of other information as well as everything the Obama copy has, including most relevantly the name and address of the hospital of birth, as well as the signatures of my mother as informant and the attending physician. My copy was given me by my parents, and I believe it's the original copy they received when it was filed, soon after my birth.
On to 338-19. It says, "The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original."
So is the original birth certificate too damaged to photocopy or even take a photograph of, or to pull out of the file? That'd have to be awfully badly damaged, considering how gently photocopies may be made these days. So it seems puzzling. And if it is the case, then why hasn't someone simply said so? Why do I have to delve into the cryptic "beware of the leopard" filing cabinet of the Hawaii Revised Statutes in order to get even this much of a clue?
It's nuts to postulate a conspiracy theory on the basis of this. But it is not nuts to point out that the released document is not the original birth certificate, or to ask what happened to the original.
