See Virginia is not the only place to have these problems, however we are fortunate in that the records that once were available online were available ,last I heard ,on E-bay in the form of CA birth and death records for about $45. 00 for 5 CDs.In our case I tried to follow the whole thing and even wrote our CA legislators but even the argument about the worst kinds of theft of identity came from home and car burglaries and purse and wallet theft did not dissuade our governor Davis from signing the law that goes into full effect on 1 July 2003. SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN Sacramento, CA http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=purplevw1&I11.x=17&I11.y =7 http://www.progenealogists.com/genealogysleuthb.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: <SheleeBebo@aol.com> To: <CA-DEATH-INDEX-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [CADI] SB1614 - Unknown/Possible Relatives > Until 1 July 2003 there is no restriction on who may order a certified death > certificate. Some counties are still allowing free transcripitons. I'm not > sure if the county in which you are interested might be one of those. > > The points you bring up illustrate the problems with the new legislation, > both 1614 and 247. You will be required, on 1 July 2003, to either sign an > affidavit of relationship if you appear in person to request a document at > the County, or to provide a notarized statement that you are related to the > necessary degree if you choose to order a document by mail. The information > I have to date (and this is a changing scene at this point) is that the > affidavit form should be finalized sometime in April in anticipation of 1 > July 2003. > > **Alternatively, and this is not clear, you (if not directly related) appear > to be able to pay for an "informational copy" of the record which will have > removed from it the mother's maiden name and any social security numbers. > You will still have to sign an affidavit agreeing not to use this > informational copy for illegal purposes.** > > If you read the language of the statutes, you will see that if you violate > the provisions of the laws you can be subject to fines of $1000 per violation > and jail time. You may also be subject to losing access to California vital > records forever. I'm not an attorney, and you might wish to consult one to > determine whether the action you are questioning might lead to these > repercussions. > > If you will not sign the affidavit stating that you are related to the person > for whom you seek the document, you are not likely to get that unexpurgated > document. The counties are required to keep copies of the requests. > > Realistically, how can a recorder's office employee determine that you are in > fact related to the person for whom you seek the document? They don't have > time to perform a pedigree analysis when you are standing at the counter. > That is why YOU are taking the burden of proof on yourself when you sign the > affidavit. > > The costs of producing the new indices vary by county, depending on what they > had previously been using. Ultimately over the next 4 years or so the State > will be providing all of the record copies which are issued, and this is > supposed to result in a reduction of fees. > > However, I don't think the future is written in stone at this point. There > are several parties concerned and impacted by this legislation who are > researching ways to amend or challenge it. > > Alternative ways to prove relationship will have to be utilized by the > genealogist. The loss of the mother's maiden name as provided on vital > records is a big problem, but prior to the advent of online genealogy we > researchers had to work in a more painstaking manner to document direct and > collateral relationships, utilizing every available source. This should > still be the procedure, as opposed to the reliance on obits and death > certificates to extend our pedigrees. > > --Sheila P. > > > In a message dated 1/30/03 9:42:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > desrx@mybluelight.com writes: > > > The issue I am going to address may have already been discussed. If not then > > perhaps for the powers that be in legal discusssions. The matter came up as > > I was looking locally for an obit of a person for someone who thinks it > > MIGHT be her grandmother. At the half way point in checking, there is no > > obit. The person asked how they might learn more about this person and of > > course my immeidate thought is GET THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. > > > > This brings up how or can one request a record if one is not certain of the > > connection. In the past we of course used these very documents to confirm > or > > dismiss in our genealogical pursuit. If I think X is my grandmother or > great > > grandmother do I request the record and list myself as grandchild or great > > grandchild supposedly eligible to receive such a 'protected' document. And > > if she is not, then can I be charged with perjury and fraud? > > > > On the other hand if I request the record and inform the recorder/clerk > that > > I THINK she maybe my direct relative but am not sure, will he/she deny my > > request because I cannot state for certainity that she is my direct > > ancestor? And what about the fee? In the past the fee was to SEARCH for a > > particular document in a particular time period. Will I be charged now to > > determine eligiblity for a record as well (before you laugh - this is > > California where they add new meaning to 'government is a license to > > steal')? > > > > For that matter will the cost of documents be reduced in the future? From > my > > understanding, CA already had a records index(es). The increased fee is > > suppose to cover the costs of recooping the establishment of the new index. > > Once that amount has been recooped in new fees should not the fees be > > reduced? > > > > On a related observation, the KCBS TV news station (channel 2, Los Angeles) > > was going over the new laws on the 1st or 2nd of January. The report noted > > the increased document fees and attributed it (in the usual authoritative > > fashion) to the state's 'budget' crisis without any mention of SB1614 or > the > > new restrictions. > > > > Michael McTeer > > 29 Palms, CA > > > > > ==== CA-DEATH-INDEX Mailing List ==== > Looking for an obituary on a recent death? > Obituary Daily Times > http://obits.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/obit.cgi >

This came from the Missouri List: I thought my fellow family history researchers might like a heads-up on a recently proposed piece of legislature that could limit access to what is now public information. I have yet to make up my own mind on the merits of this bill. Some give and take from the list might prove fruitful: Missouri State Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer,R-St. Elizabeth, has authored HB72, which would prevent public access to some military records on file with county recorders of deeds, for 50 years from the date of filing. The proposed goal of the bill is to prevent identity theft. The bill would restrict access to the former service member, certain relatives such as a spouse or next of kin, and legal representatives. The bill would block access to DD-214 forms, discharge or separation notices, certificates of service, or reports of transfer or discharge, which veterans may have filed with county recorders for federal benefits or loans. These records are currently subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law. According to an article in the Jan. 29 edition of the Jefferson City News Tribune, The Missouri Press Association opposes the proposed legislation, fearing it could lead to further restrictions on public information. The following link to Rep. Luetkemeyer's web site provides access to the entire text of the legislation, plus and Email address and other contact numbers for the Representative. http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/member/mem115.htm Walt Klein Jefferson City, MO