Certifigate: How Did HI Determine that Mr. Obama is “Natural Born?”
Longtime readers will remember when I reported on how Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino made the claim that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen. As the link to the post shows, a flurry of comments then ensued from both sides about how “this was it” — what more did the so-called “birthers” need to know? The dear Director made the proclamation; what else is needed?
As I posed in the previous postings, I asked a number of questions regarding the authority by which Dr. Fukino could make those claims. After all, while she is vested with the authority of overseeing the great State of Hawaii’s vital documentation, nobody has been able to point to a specific law that says that any State’s or Commonwealth’s Director of Health’s (or similar Department’s) proclamation is what is required to help any other authority, including the People at large, make an exclusive determination as to the eligibility of anyone for the presidency.
What’s more, we still do not know upon what basis the Director made her claim. Did she actually see Mr. Obama’s birth certificate? Was she actually allowed to? If so, by what authority? Surely she didn’t simply act on her own, as that would constitute an arbitrary breach of privacy over a private individual’s documentation. Did someone ask her to do so? If so, who? After all, the FactCheck.org blog would lead us to believe that the Obama campaign had some unnamed individual make a request for the alleged document they show in image format that proclaims itself to be Mr. Obama’s short-form certification of live birth.
But wait a minute — “someone” from the Obama campaign did this? By what authority? Does the HI DoH merely take an oral promise from an arbitrary individual that another arbitrary individual, namely Mr. Obama, is allowing access by someone else? Where’s a copy of the receipt for the cost of the transaction to procure the COLB?
It now gets even better. In the interest of total government transparency, attorney Leo Donofrio — working pro bono to help a fellow concerned citizen and activist by the online name of “TerriK” — has found a way to pursue this matter from a different perspective. They are going to ask the Department of Health a very key question:
Upon what basis — upon what documentation — did the Director of Health make the determination that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?
What’s more, according to his article, it appears that it is well within a citizen’s right to ask about such a proclamation:
I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)
Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.
I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).
Any legal assistance provided by me to TerriK will be pro bono. I will seek to be admitted pro hac vice in Hawaii for purposes of filing the case and conducting the trial. If such admission is not forthcoming, other counsel may be retained or TerriK may represent herself pro se. In any case, I will be drafting the pleadings. The only issue will be related to who files them and conducts the trial de novo.
While correspondence sent to TerriK confirms that President Obama’s vital records have been amended, the DoH has refused to make the documents requested available. One count of the litigation will attempt to have those documents released. The other counts concern various information denied to her which – according to Hawaii law – she is entitled to.
Before I get to the facts of the ongoing investigation in my follow up report, I will ask readers to study the UIPA manual and the UIPA statute.
Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.
STANDING
TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:
“Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.
Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.
ISSUES
Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:
(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;
On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
TerriK requested all information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.
TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested.
I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence.
Furthermore, Hawaii officials - upon denying TerriK access to information requested – were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:
(b)… If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]
The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to a judicial appeal. Instead, the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.
We will bring this litigation according to the following statute provision:
§92F-15 Judicial enforcement.
(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.
(b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.
(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.
Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.
With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.
Again, as WorldNetDaily points out, this particular question isn’t about specifically requesting copies of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate or what not; it’s about finding out how Dr. Fukino made very clearly public comments concerning his citizenship. After all, if she can make such a determination, then such a documented basis is not a private matter:
On his blog, Donofrio explained that one of his contacts, identified as “TerriK,” had asked for all of the state information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing Fukino’s public statements.
Under state law, he said, “such information must be released.”
“TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the president was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested,” he said.
Donofrio said work is under way to press the demand.
“I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence,” he said.
Under the state’s law addressing records. exceptions are made for government records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.
But it explains that disclosure “shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.”
Department spokesman Janice Okubo told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure.
But she admitted the law allows a challenge to such decisions in the courts.
In fact, the law states, “A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure. … The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.”
What I find interesting about all of this is that “opposition” sites like NativeBornCitizen report that while it is pretty clear that the public does not necessarily have the right to openly inspect an individual’s birth certificate, they do not address the fact that “TerriK” is not barred from asking the Director exactly how the Director made the public statements that she (the Director) did:
In a followup, the same person asked for Hawaii to release the relevant records under its open records law (UIPA). Pointing to HRS §92F-12) (15) “Information collected for the purpose of making information available to the public”” (With no exceptions noted ). Perhaps TerriK does not understand that the long form birth certificate was not collected for the purpose of making the information available to the public, on the contrary, other than for statistical purposes, the data was not collected for the purpose of making the information public.
The Hawaiian Open Records Law clearly is not meant for these purposes, and clearly explains that any and all records of the Government will be public unless laws or statutes prohibit this.
The same site performed an excellent job of reporting on the email exchange that “TerriK” had with the HI DoH (read from the bottom of the following quote up to get the context of the email thread):
From: “Okubo, Janice S.” <janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov>
Date: July 27, 2009 11:45:54 PM EDT
To: XXX
Subject: RE: Your help is appreciated.Attached is the statement issued today by the Hawaii State Director of
Health. The director has never used the term “AMMENDED” in any of her
issued statements regarding this issue.—–Original Message—–
From: XXX
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:00 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: Re: Your help is appreciated.Ms. Okubo,
Aloha! Thank you so much for replying quickly. And, thank you for the
‘infamous’ press release–it is a document I refer to every so often
and having my very own is much appreciated. I’ll consider this
document my brush with fame AND infamy! Frankly, I wonder what you
must think of the ‘Birther’ inquiries and would like to state upfront,
that I completely respect Hawaii’s Privacy laws. I ask that you answer
the following, if privacy laws allow:“Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the
Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee
and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have
verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President
Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.”I fear my carefully chosen wording appears like an effort to ‘pull a
fast one’–however, I modeled it on the following statement you were
able to make publicly on your press release last year :“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along
with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to
oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen
and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen.
Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state
policies and procedures. “I hope this is reasonable to ask. If not, can you point me to the
applicable statute?Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
XXX
On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Okubo, Janice S. wrote:
Aloha XXX,
Attached is the statement issued by the state last year in the Fall.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Fax: (808) 586-4444
email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov—–Original Message—–
From: XXX
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:20 AM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: Your help is appreciated.Dear Ms. Okubo,
Can the State of Hawaii verify that they have the Amended (Original)
birth record for President Barack Obama on file in accordance with
state policies, whether digital, paper or otherwise?Thank you and I apologize for your trouble in asking–I can’t imagine
how this issue must be overwhelming you. You have been extremely
patient and professional from what I can discern. But, I feel the best
thing for me, is just to ask you guys myself.Thank you again,
XXX
Of course, the Department of Health is not going to reveal anything more than they already have, which is actually good news for “TerriK” and Mr. Donofrio; the DoH isn’t going to explicitly release such documentation to the public, nor are they going to try to restate what they’ve already gone on the record to say. It is furthermore noteworthy that it is possible for a Court to make a decision on this issue as there are laws that could potentially make such disclosure available — and where laws exist, the Judiciary can be tasked to help interpret them.
Nevertheless, as Trinity would say to Neo in The Matrix:
“It’s the question that drives us, Neo…”
“What is the matrix?”
In this case, the question is:
Upon what basis did you determine that you could issue a proclamation that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, from your perspective?
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
“Speaking of burden of proof, you might note that the State of Hawaii has burden to prove why it can’t release this non-specific information.”
Not true. Hawaii repeatedly has said “privacy interests” and cited relevant law. If anyone thinks Hawaii is wrong, they will have to sue in court, and the burden will be person suing.
Pete says: “Speaking of burden of proof, you might note that the State of Hawaii has burden to prove why it can’t release this non-specific information.”—————————- Bingo!!! Give that man a cigar or a chalupa or perhaps a shakelight!!!
I however totally agree that if Obama is brought to trial in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the state/accusers.
The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff, in both criminal and civil cases.
Be that as it may, I have never seen the bar set this high for simple document discovery
Because these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke the court’s discovery powers, that’s why.
Moreover, I have never heard of a state government refusing to state if a receipt (not the document) was issued for a purchase of a simple document, i.e. the 2007 COLB.
Because it is an indirect attempt to circumvent rules designed to obtain protected information. Besides, you have the right to determine whether a receipt was issued for a specific transaction?
That something is very wrong when you can’t get receipt information verified by a state government on a simple document, already publically ‘released’ by the defendant. Especially when there are laws in place to ‘assist’ in obtaining this information from the state.
Except when there are competing privacy interests at play.
Speaking of burden of proof, you might note that the State of Hawaii has burden to prove why it can’t release this non-specific information.
And laws have been cited; it is has meet its burden.
>>>siseduermapierd: The burden of proof is always on those who accuse, on the plaintiff. It’s the entire basis for our justice system.<<<<
This has NOT been my experience in civil court. The judges/courts demand expedited discovery, even with frivolous cases. Civil court is not the same as a criminal court. I however totally agree that if Obama is brought to trial in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the state/accusers. Be that as it may, I have never seen the bar set this high for simple document discovery, of already self released public documents, in a civil case. Moreover, I have never heard of a state government refusing to state if a receipt (not the document) was issued for a purchase of a simple document, i.e. the 2007 COLB.
I am not speculating, I am stating: That something is very wrong when you can't get receipt information verified by a state government on a simple document, already publically 'released' by the defendant. Especially when there are laws in place to 'assist' in obtaining this information from the state.
Speaking of burden of proof, you might note that the State of Hawaii has burden to prove why it can't release this non-specific information.
JeffM says:
September 24, 2009 at 10:19 pm
*I think we’re going about this the wrong way. We can’t even tell if he’s even a present day U.S. citizen. I challenge anyone here to provide sufficient proof of Usurperbag Soetoro’s U.S. citizenship as of September 24, 2009 based on statutes found in U.S. Code.*
People who challenge President Obama’s eligibility, and now, apparently whether he is a US citizen at all, have been going about it the wrong way all along. For some reason you think the burden of proof is on President Obama. The burden of proof is always on those who accuse, on the plaintiff. It’s the entire basis for our justice system. President Obama has the benefit of assumption: until someone proves otherwise, it is assumed he is a US natural born citizen. That is a fact, it’s not opinion, it’s not obot, it’s the law – the burden of proof is always on the accuser. The demands for President Obama to just show the proof are wrong. The expectation that a judge somewhere will force President Obama to open his records, produce an original birth certificate, prove anything are simply wishful thinking. No judge in this country is going to shift the burden of proof. I am beginning to think the constant demands that President Obama give up his right to the benefit of assumption may actually be un-American. If you shift the burden of proof in one case, then you’ve changed it forever. Do you really want to give up your right to be innocent until proven guilty? Because that’s what you’re asking from our justice system, is to remove that right.
misanthropicus says:
Hold on, what did I post here… Ah, I quoted what Dr. Fukino actually said:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was? born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
And showed where readers can get directly from the state of Hawaii:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
That losing every time thing you guys do — what makes you think we would want to learn that?
That should be usurper, obviously, not a word I have written in my past, sorry for the error.
I have to admit to “not really caring” about some theory on how you can get this info from HI. Just quit writing about it and GO DO IT!
We can’t even get a judge to rule on motions that were due in early August in the Kerchner v Obama case so don’t quote me HI statutes, if you think you can do it, just go do it.
I’m tired of theory and the weak arguments including most citizens are NBC, your opinion is equal to mine (even though mine is correct), not worth a dime.
HI is not even THE question. Papa was not ever a citizen so 0 can never be an NBC. We just need a judge to grow some and get over this silly “standing” crap that they made up. How about hearing the merits of the case, which every judge has managed to avoid. It is the “not it” theory of deciding cases. Kerchner has the right approach and the judge is no where to be found. Chicken.
This has gone on long enough, at this point all we need is the Supremes to give us a definition of NBC, how hard is that. Evidently too hard for any judge to consider. I am losing respect for the Judicial system just like I’ve lost respect for the Legislative branch and I’m pretty sure I’ve got a usurper in the Executive branch.
So I’m supposed to just support this government with my hard earned money? And the MSM wonders why folks are angry? Just “racists”, are you kidding me?
JeffM…
Title 8, section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Then of course theres Section 1405: A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
Now, since he qualifies under that statement, it is upto you to find
So, that leaves us with seeing if he lost his citizenship at all.
Title 8, Section 1481 deals with loss of citizenship.
Oh, and here’s the killer for you.
So, the big question is can you prove that any one of these situations occurred? You’re the one claiming that he’s not a U.S. Citizen. So, can you claim that any one of these losses occured?
>>>>Black Lion
Really…And if you showed that same person the joke of evidence the birthers are relying on they would burst out laughing.<<<<<
Black Lion,
Sorry, have to call you out on this one. I have seen 'discovery' granted for almost any reason, even when evidence CLEARLY, and without denial from the plantiff, proved that the claim was fraudulent. Truth is, somewhere in America it likely happened again today. The 'bar' for discovery has been set very high for release of a simple document, one that a child would produce to play soccer. Further, the supposed record has already been made public! You have claimed that yourself!
What is the problem with release of an already public document? Would you advise your client to prevent release of a document that they already published on the internet?
While the Birther's claim seem 'out there on the moon' the Obots claim seem to be 'out past pluto'. The only thing I am certain of, and I hope we can agree on:
1. Clearly, somebody has it wrong here (in regards to NBC question).
2. The potential implications for it being a "vast left wing conspiracy", is Constitutional choas.
3. The state of Hawaii previously denied release of a 2007 COLB or COLB transaction for Obama. Currently they will no longer comment on it, even though was made a 'public' document. Failure to comment on the government transaction appears to be illegal, under the abovementioned UPIA. Especially since the transaction request has NO PERSONAL information.
4. If the 2007 internet COLB was altered, or doesn't exist in reality, then there was WIDESPREAD election fraud.
5. Verification of 'amending' of Obama's vital records would be very damaging, and difficult to explain.
The answers are likely going to be forthcoming shortly, via UPIA requests, on several of the above. Will it be the Moon or Pluto?
I think we’re going about this the wrong way. We can’t even tell if he’s even a present day U.S. citizen. I challenge anyone here to provide sufficient proof of Usurperbag Soetoro’s U.S. citizenship as of September 24, 2009 based on statutes found in U.S. Code.
After all, it is the 4th and final requirement for eligibility of any elected office held in the federal government. People on here are arguing about something that happened almost 50 years ago.
And no, a passport, a driver’s license, or prior employment is not sufficient to ensuring citizenship. A prognisticated “nice try” just in case anyone wants to flub their trump card.
misanthropicus says:
September 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm
How many times I (and so many others) said: Curioser and curioser?
Now, with the solid confirmation that “Dreams From My Father” was written by Bill Ayres (check with AT & PJM), things don’t get clearer – yet, with that in mind, one simply cannot marvel about so many concerted efforts made to design, promote and maintain the persona dba Obama.
What solid evidence? The comments from Chris Andersen? He is writing a book. His confirmation for his claim that Ayers wrote President Obama’s book was no other than Jack Cashill, who works for WND and was pushing that story a year ago. There is no evidence for his claim. A real literary expert, Peter Millican has already debunked that whole Ayers wrote the book theory. You may want to read up on it.
From Conwebwatch…
“The Sept. 23 WND article by Art Moore notes that “Andersen cites Cashill as a source” for the claim, but tries to obscure that by claiming that “Andersen relied on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama, to describe how ‘Dreams’ was published.” Cashill similarly tries to obscure things as well, writing that “Andersen cites my contribution to his research, but he clearly has access to inside information that I did not have.”
“Moore goes on to tout how “Cashill commissioned an independent scientific comparative analysis of writings by Obama and Ayers to determine whether Ayers had a significant role in the writing of ‘Dreams.’” But he doesn’t mention that at least one of those experts utterly discredited Cashill’s conpsiracy theory.”
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
The article that debunks the theory…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5062890.ece
Hope the Oct. 5th hearing in Santa Ana will eventually put things on a advancing track – I might even travel down there to be in the audience.
So do we all. When the case is dismissed I wonder how long it will take until everyone claims that Judge Carter & Nakazato are “in the bag” for President Obama.
“The “That gentleman doth protest too much” syndrome”
If you mean by pointing out to the severe lack of evidence and to the law means we are “protesting too much”, then I guess I am guilty.
“If you bring someone completely unaware of the issue debated here, he/she will soon, after reading Black Lion’s and Brygenon’s posts, become a solid Birther – so much effort, so much obfuscation, so much bad faith cannot but arouse suspicion even in naive natures.”
Really…And if you showed that same person the joke of evidence the birthers are relying on they would burst out laughing. I mean using convicted felons as witnesses, unauthenticated Kenyan BC’s and fake Pakistan travel bans would get this case thrown out on the Peoples court, much less a real court. So far you are batting .000 with all of your cases. Good luck.
[...] a previous posting, I reported how attorney Leo Donofrio and a concerned citizen going by the online moniker, [...]
Looking good everybody. The imposter is dropping in the approval ratings as I suspected “it” would be doing by about now. The “it” refers to the imposter and you all know who I am talking about. The imposter deserves no more respect than a mention of being called an “it”. Tell me what you want to hear and that is what I will tell to you. Geez that is easy enough what do you want to hear? Wait let me guess you want to hear that I will steal from those who are more fortunate than thou and I will render it unto thee. So be it or at least I will try. Must be uncomfortable living in the white house nowadays. Breaking out in a cold sweat at night a night in which you can’t even sleep. “I just want to be in the white house I can’t accomplish anything but put me there or you are a racist.” As I have said before I owned no slaves and abhor slavery I also abhor those who would refer to anybody as a racist without knowing the full background of that person. Also no one on this blog can see the color of my skin through the computer screen. One other thing I abhor is someone who goes around race baiting like ‘bama.
The “That gentleman doth protest too much” syndrome -
If you bring someone completely unaware of the issue debated here, he/she will soon, after reading Black Lion’s and Brygenon’s posts, become a solid Birther – so much effort, so much obfuscation, so much bad faith cannot but arouse suspicion even in naive natures.
Black Lion & Brygenon – you need to change your tactics in order to achieve even a tiny persuasion edge. Or, since this matter is getting serioser & serioser everyday, simply quit – you don’t have facts to introduce as evidence.
Best regards -
See Leo’s latest:
TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
The COLB, under the law, is a copy of the birth certificate. Therefore, it must have “altered” on it, if it was altered.
“Under the law” cover, eh? We like reality – you know, where’s the beef?!! It cannot be a “copy” of the actual birth certificate – it merely satisfies for purposes needed or there wouldn’t be a provision for someone who wishes to see more info. And for that matter, they wouldn’t call it something else! You would be requiring a COLB itself to have been amended in your reasoning. Let’s not mix apples and oranges.
Observer says:
September 24, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“trust but verify”.
It was verified. By the person who had the authority to do so.
You are making serious accusations.
Where??
Basically you are implying that the state of HI is not telling the truth when it stated that the President was born in Hawaii. Did you ever think that they are just telling the truth, that the President was born where he claims that he was born? No, you would prefer to believe in a vast conspiracy.
Nice try at beginner ESP, but please, only one “messiah” at a time in this current mess. It’s in your head only what is “implied” … and to your own convenience. I’m with Reagan – “trust but verify”. All we’re sayin – is that Hawaii has a rather, shall we say, liberal approach to officializing data. Any general statement coming out of that set up has to be a bit more specific on the details that permit such “official” statements. I mean, after all, someone completely ill equipped to pronounce on such profound questions as NBC sets a stage to be questioned on his/her interpretation of other documents!! Now try and stay away from the exaggerated personal assumptions or you might be accused as a “birther” from the opposite extreme!
Observer, please read HRS338-13(c). That says, “Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.”
The COLB, under the law, is a copy of the birth certificate. Therefore, it must have “altered” on it, if it was altered.
Again, show me where on the COLB is it marked “altered”?
I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD!
THE U.N. ADULATES ME!
HI MUST DENY.
How many times I (and so many others) said: Curioser and curioser?
Now, with the solid confirmation that “Dreams From My Father” was written by Bill Ayres (check with AT & PJM), things don’t get clearer – yet, with that in mind, one simply cannot marvel about so many concerted efforts made to design, promote and maintain the persona dba Obama.
Hope the Oct. 5th hearing in Santa Ana will eventually put things on a advancing track – I might even travel down there to be in the audience.
Observer says:
September 24, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Black Lion,
“One could speculate that you haven’t really been keeping up to snuff on the most creative ways that Hawaii, in its own rather unique model, can get away with making general statements that cover whatever you wish it to cover. You still did not address those various pathways to getting “born in Hawaii” into those “vital records” – esp. when no one can verify the where and who.”
Observer, I am aware of those so called “other ways”. One major one was not in effect until 1982, well after President Obama was born. If there is a specific “other way” you are alluding to, then let us know. Cite the reg you feel was violated in order for the President to obtain his birth cerfificate. If we are playing the “let us question any document game”, then how do we really know where any of our last 5 President’s were born. Their documents could have been fake. Their parents could have lied. GW Bush could have been born in Canada. We have never heard from any doctor or hospital worker that was there when he was born. This is an endless cycle. The point is that we might never know the doctor and what hospital, and to be honest most Americans don’t care. If the COLB states it was HI, the head of the vital statistics departments states he was born in HI, there are birth announcements that support this, and a senio Congressman from HI (Abercrombie) remembers President Obama’s parents from school and remembers young Barack, then that is enough for me. The entire conspiracy about secret Kenyan births, lying relatives, and fraudulent documents is a bit much for the average person to believe.
“And, btw, I didn’t elaborate on what the listing could contain when it comes to “vital records”. Thank you for repeating them since you seem to have a penchant for parroting regs but conveniently leaving out the many ways such lists could without any authenticating proof contain their sundry information.”
I don’t believe that I left anything out. According to the state of HI vital records could only be 4 things, and 3 of them do not affect President Obama. So to imply that we are not sure what Dr. Fukino meant when she referenced vital records is being disingenous. I “parrot” regs and laws because we are a nation of laws. That is what judges rely on. Not innuendo and speculation.
“What I questioned was how, within those convenient pathways, was the public given any kind of proof in any meaningful specific way that blank statements aren’t covering a permissable multitude of sins, in the case of Hawaii.”
You are making serious accusations. Basically you are implying that the state of HI is not telling the truth when it stated that the President was born in Hawaii. Did you ever think that they are just telling the truth, that the President was born where he claims that he was born? No, you would prefer to believe in a vast conspiracy. This is your right. You don’t have to believe or support the President. However the fact of the matter is that once we get past the speculation and innuendo, the President will still be in office until at least 2013. That you cannot change.
MGB says:
September 24, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Black Lion: I asked that question because it seems out of character for you, so I wondered whether somebody was impersonating you. I have read Orly’s documents and I do cringe. She needs a good proofreader.
Agreed…I was in a bit of a rush earlier when posting due to a staff meeting and I did not have time to look over what I wrote…Thanks.
dunstvangeet says:
September 24, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Observer, HRS 338-13(b) says that all copies must be marked the same way.
HRS 338-16(a) says that any altered birth certificate must be marked “altered”.
So, mind showing me on the COLB (which is legally a copy of a birth certificate), where the mark of “altered” is on it?
The operative word here is “birth certificate”. But short forms contain only the utilitarian info needed to get the job done….thus the current standing. If you obtain a copy of the birth certificate itself with interest in all the previously listed history (complete) in mind, there would then obviously be the need to specify just what has been “amended”.
Black Lion,
One could speculate that you haven’t really been keeping up to snuff on the most creative ways that Hawaii, in its own rather unique model, can get away with making general statements that cover whatever you wish it to cover. You still did not address those various pathways to getting “born in Hawaii” into those “vital records” – esp. when no one can verify the where and who. And, btw, I didn’t elaborate on what the listing could contain when it comes to “vital records”. Thank you for repeating them since you seem to have a penchant for parroting regs but conveniently leaving out the many ways such lists could without any authenticating proof contain their sundry information. What I questioned was how, within those convenient pathways, was the public given any kind of proof in any meaningful specific way that blank statements aren’t covering a permissable multitude of sins, in the case of Hawaii.