78 Comments »

• The Right Side of Life » Certifigate: HI DoH Stalls on Legitimate Records Request says:

  October 1, 2009 at 10:03 pm

  [...] attorney Leo Donofrio reported that he and “TerriK” are working on finding the basis for how Hawaii Director of Health [...]
• Sharon 2 says:

  September 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm

  Obama has done as much to clear this up as George W. Bush did to clear up those “hard questions” about his involvement in 9/11.

  - I think thus about sums you up. “Nuff said.
• Bob says:

  September 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  -You are entitled to your wrong opinion.

  A “wrong” opinion shared by the State of Hawaii.

  -It was pretty explicit here.

  And where is this “explicit” waiver by Obama?

  Would you like to hear the list of documents required?

  And the relevance between documents required for a government program and your desire to see Obama’s sister’s babysitter’s cousin’s library card is…what?

  It was “birth certficiate” to “vital records” when asked about an amended birth certificate.

  Because “vital records” was used in the latter statement. The “ability” to see clues in overly parsed words is rather amazing.

  When Tickly sought clarification, there was no further explanation.

  Her request was denied. The first “no” was sufficiently clear.

  You act as if Obama has done so much in clearing this issue up.

  Obama has done as much to clear this up as George W. Bush did to clear up those “hard questions” about his involvement in 9/11.

  Birth certificates ARE NOT Protected by HIPPA.

  Birth certificates are protected by HIPAA. What you have cited are specific exceptions to HIPAA’s protections. Those exceptions, however, do not apply here.
• Pragmatic Dog says:

  September 27, 2009 at 3:14 am

  brygenon says:
  September 26, 2009 at 3:41 am Berg and Taitz have each suggested the other is actually working for Obama.

  What’s more, on Sept 15 Taitz blogged about “EXPOSING THE OBOTS DRESSED AS PATRIOTS”. Her list included “Phil from TheRightSideofLife”. Yes, Orly has figured out that our host is an under-cover obot.

  Phil, you sure had me fooled
  _____________________________________________________________________ Getting that bad that you stoop that low — eh? The truth will come out in the end,regardless of how these lawsuits turn out.This isn’t about partisan politics or gaining approval of any celebrity lawyers.Barry Soetoro is being exposed daily.The country might fall and we will all suffer in the process,but the man is being exposed as a Marxist shill for the elites.
• syc1959 says:

  September 26, 2009 at 9:23 pm

  some more enlightening info on HIPPA

  Protected Health Information. Individually identifiable health information transmitted electronically or any other way. It includes information about past, present, or anticipated mental or physical health, and the provision of or payment for health care.

  Covered entities. These are the entities who must adhere to the HIPAA rules. Included are health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses that transmit any health information in an electronic format.

  Personal Identifiers. Information that can be used to find the identity of an individual to link them to their PHI.

  Scenario 1

  A family physician’s patient dies at home. The physician is asked to fill out a death certificate, which contains PHI as defined by the HIPAA privacy rule. Is this permitted without family authorization?

  Unauthorized disclosure is permitted. Vital statistics–required information on death and birth certificates–has not been changed by HIPAA. The information required on the death certificate can be provided without authorization.

  Scenario 2

  A patient is diagnosed with tuberculosis. This is a reportable disease per the state health code. Can the physician report the PHI requested on the disease reporting form?

  Unauthorized disclosure is permitted. Each state health authority requires health care providers to report information about individuals who have contracted a disease of public health significance. Reportable disease lists differ by jurisdiction, and physicians should be aware of the diseases reportable in their areas and how the information is to be reported. Individual authorization for release of PHI in these disease reports is not required by HIPAA.

  Scenario 3

  A physician examines an infant who has unexplained injuries. Child abuse is suspected. Is child abuse reporting exempted from the privacy rule?

  Unauthorized disclosure is permitted. Reporting of child abuse and neglect is exempted. This information may even be reported to a non-health agency, such as a child protective service, as long as the reportable information is required by law, and individual authorization is not required.

  Scenario 4

  A patient suffers what appears to be an adverse reaction to a medication. The FDA adverse event reporting form asks for PHI. Can a physician report PHI in this instance without patient authorization?

  Unauthorized disclosure is permitted. Reporting of adverse events or reactions from drugs, food, biological products, and medical devices is still permitted without authorization.

  Scenario 5

  A patient is newly diagnosed with lung cancer. The state maintains a cancer registry and physicians are required to report PHI about patients with cancer. In this state the cancer registry is maintained by the university under contract with the State Health Department. Is reporting permitted without patient authorization?

  Unauthorized disclosure is permitted. Cancer and immunization registry reporting of PHI is still permitted even if the entity responsible for the registry is not a public health agency, as long as it is under the authority of the agency to perform this public health function.

  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_9_53/ai_n6207442/

  Crushing Obot lies – One post at a time.

  Current state of an Obot – DENIAL

  How’s that Hopey Changey thing workin for ya?

  Barack Obama — The Audacity of HYPE
• syc1959 says:

  September 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm

  Bob

  For additional information

  http://www.schs.state.nc.us/hipaa/policies/Supporting-Material/Guidance-for-Determining-Designated-Record-Sets-under-HIPAA_final.doc

  Administrative Data

  While it should be provided the same level of confidentiality as the LHR, administrative data are not considered part of the LHR (such as in response to a subpoena for the “medical record.”)

  Administrative data are patient-identifiable data used for administrative, regulatory, healthcare operations, and payment (financial) purposes.

  Examples of administrative data:
  • authorization forms for release of information
  • birth and death certificates
  • correspondence concerning requests for records
  • event history/audit trails
  • patient-identifiable claim
  • patient-identifiable data reviewed for quality assurance or utilization management
  • patient identifiers (e.g., medical record number, biometrics)
  • protocols/clinical pathways, practice guidelines, and other knowledge sources that do not imbed patient data

  I cherish crushing Obot lies.

  In the face of reality, Obots depend on Ritalin
• syc1959 says:

  September 26, 2009 at 9:14 pm

  Bob

  Stop lying. Birth certificates ARE NOT Protected by HIPPA.

  Here is California for example;

  Hospitals and local health departments in California use AVSS to create paper birth certificates and electronic birth certificate records. Both the paper certificate and the electronic record are then transmitted to the State of California Office of Vital Records. It is the opinion of the California State Registrar of Vital Records that AVSS is exempt from the HIPPA Privacy Rule requirements under Section 164.512(b)(1). According to HIPAA Section 164.512(b)(1), a covered entity may disclose protected information for public health activities to a public health authority that is authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including, but not limited to, the reporting of disease, injury, vital events such as birth or death, and the conduct of public health surveillance, public health investigations, and public health interventions… The legal authorization for birth registration is covered under Sections 102425-102475 of the California Health and Safety Code. Although the AVSS is exempt from HIPAA, it contains many features designed to insure the confidentiality of birth certificate information. These include such safeguards as password authentication, user and device based access controls, audit trails of all user interactions, and security reports of failed access attempts.

  http://www.avss.ucsb.edu/hipaa.pdf

  Obama BS is still BS

  There is stupid
  Then there is ‘Obam” stupid
• Phil says:

  September 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm

  brygenon,

  Phil, you sure had me fooled.

  I have you fooled on a whole host of things.

  -Phil
• Sharon2 says:

  September 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  ***And this certainly isn’t one of them.

  -You are entitled to your wrong opinion.

  ***Waivers are explicit.

  -It was pretty explicit here.

  *** Have you seen the ever-growing laundry list of documents being demanded? This is neverending.

  - My husband lost his job this summer. Part of the process for getting our children into the S-CHIP program for our state was to first see if we met the guidelines for medical assistance. Would you like to hear the list of documents required? Well, I’ll tell you. Copies of birth certificates and social securities numbers for everyone living in the house. A signed statement (witnessed by another) that we are legal U.S. citizens. W-2’s, pay stubs, bank statements, letter proving loss of job, and a few other things. This was after the initial paperwork for the S-CHIP program itself that required its own list of documents. I don’t feel sorry for our President having to prove who he is. [On a side note, my husband is starting a new job Monday with insurance to begin October 1st. S-Chip screwed things up so much that the kids never got insured. (they found my husband's income at a level he never made even while employed and were supposed to get back to me; still waiting). He lost his employment July 1. The process for S-CHIP is supposed to take 4-6 weeks. We did everything asked of us. Government screws everything up].
  ***
  Many possible reasons, the most likely being different drafters. This is a temptest in a teapot over “vital record” versus “vital records” when people commonly refer records in the plural. Fukino has made it clear Obama was born in Hawaii, yet this never stops.

  - It was “birth certficiate” to “vital records” when asked about an amended birth certificate. The word was changed completely. Different drafter? Hardly. When Tickly sought clarification, there was no further explanation. You act as if Obama has done so much in clearing this issue up.
• Bob says:

  September 26, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  I still believe there is a balancing test applied in the request of documents (outside of a request protected under HIPAA).

  And a birth certificate is covered under HIPAA, so Donofrio can get no more than the index data, which already has been released.

  There are some cases where the releasing of information deemed significantly private was considered more important than the protection of the individual’s rights.

  And this certainly isn’t one of them.

  There still is a waiver issue (public statements by Fukino, if approved by Obama, seems a very good indicator of wiaver, as well as releasing a copy-not yet verified as coming from DoH- of a COLB).

  Waivers are explicit.

  It would be so easy to be transparent.

  Have you seen the ever-growing laundry list of documents being demanded? This is neverending.

  Why would the wording be changed?

  Many possible reasons, the most likely being different drafters. This is a temptest in a teapot over “vital record” versus “vital records” when people commonly refer records in the plural. Fukino has made it clear Obama was born in Hawaii, yet this never stops.
• syc1959 says:

  September 26, 2009 at 11:38 am

  Black Lion

  Dictionary is NOT law.

  Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
  “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

  I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress. Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

  Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

  Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

  § 212. Citizens and natives.
  The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

  As I have stated before and will state here again. Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

  Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

  How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following;

  The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
  LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
  [Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
  New York 25 July 1787

  Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

  Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

  “The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

  Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

  As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

  The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]
  Saturday, June 21, 1788.

  Page 564

  There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

  Allow me to make one more reference;

  The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
  Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
  House of Representatives, February, 1813.

  Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

  Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

  In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.

  Thomas Jefferson

  In Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 21, Pages 250-251 ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ), we see notes from Thomas Jefferson from December 1783.

  The first question is

  “Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?”

  to which Thomas Jefferson begins his answer with

  “Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
  There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

  (In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)

  Thomas Jefferson also wrote this in his answer:

  “An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
  The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
  It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”

  (So, in the context of these notes, an “alien” is an American citizen and not a British subject.)

  The second question is

  “Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?”

  and Thomas Jefferson answers, before dealing with an objection,
  “He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.”

  (For the adult “alien” citizen son, the state of the British father does not descend to him, neither with respect to nationality/allegiance nor with respect to property.)

  The third question is
  “Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?”

  Thomas Jefferson’s answer:

  “1st. by the Common law.
  We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult. But by the common law.”

  (Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was “no middle character” between a “natural subject” and an “alien”. Further, he called the ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN son of the British subject an ALIEN who could not inherit from the British father. So, it stands to reason that Thomas Jefferson is calling the MINOR son of the British subject a NATURAL SUBJECT by the common law in following the state of the father, even though the minor son is in America following the Treaty of Paris, called the “treaty of peace” in Thomas Jefferson’s answer to Question 1.)

  “An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
  The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
  It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”

  Here is the bomb-
  When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

  Therefore Obama is an alien of the United States and an Alien is not, can not, nor EVER be a “Natural Born Citizen”

  Other Quotes:

  I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

  All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
  -Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
  http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

  The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
  -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

  “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
  -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

  “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
  “That is mine, too,” said Leahy
  -Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

  Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
  Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

  again, again, again, again CITIZENS – plural. More then one.
  The Mulatto has a foreign father

  “You Can Lead an Black Lion to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think,”

  There is stupid
  Then there is ‘Obama’ stupid

  Educating an Obot is a 12 step process.

  Educating Obots is like herding cats

  In the face of reality, Obots depend on Ritalin
• Sharon 2 says:

  September 26, 2009 at 7:52 am

  True Bob, I was quickly scanning various opinions. I still believe there is a balancing test applied in the request of documents (outside of a request protected under HIPAA). There are some cases where the releasing of information deemed significantly private was considered more important than the protection of the individual’s rights. There still is a waiver issue (public statements by Fukino, if approved by Obama, seems a very good indicator of wiaver, as well as releasing a copy-not yet verified as coming from DoH- of a COLB).

  It would be so easy to be transparent.
  __________________________________________

  He wants to know how HI ammended OBAMA’s birth records, and why they did it.

  Except there’s no evidence that ever happened. (Bob)

  **** Read carefully.
  ______________________________________________________________
  “Ms. Okubo–

  Director Fukino made this statement (Oct 2008): ““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… ” Therefore, she has the statutory authority to answer this question:

  “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?” Please reply with her answer.”

  You see, they have the same statutory authority over an Amended Original Birth Certificate that they have over an (unamended) Original Birth Certificate. No one has to attest to an Amended Original Birth Certificate’s existence or have ‘tangible interest’ in the record. By virtue of STATUTORY AUTHORITY alone she can answer my question, AND she clearly says so.

  But, to my surprise, at 11:47 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 2009 I got an electronic press release with a new statement, the first in EIGHT months with the ‘natural born citizen’ stuff people have been talking about all week:

  “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii 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.”

  I had this sent directly to me by Janice Okubo, herself, in response to my emailed question. And I suspect I had it hours before the press had it. I searched Google for any reference to this statement. None. Not even FactCheck.org had it.

  Of course, since they are able to drive the story through the media they needlessly added the stuff about being ‘natural born’ and ‘born in Hawaii’ to the answer to my question and to detract from the affirmative answer to my question and to fit their agenda. It was the headline on Yahoo! by the following morning.

  But the answer to my carefully crafted question was there none-the-less:

  “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures…”

  BECAME “original vital records [plural] maintained on file”

  ______________________________________________________________

  Why would the wording be changed?
• nonegyrb says:

  September 26, 2009 at 3:52 am

  brygenon said: “What’s more, on Sept 15 Taitz blogged about “EXPOSING THE OBOTS DRESSED AS PATRIOTS”. Her list included “Phil from TheRightSideofLife”. Yes, Orly has figured out that our host is an under-cover obot.”———— Phil is too gracious to lower himself to responding to this one,but I will.He has never bashed Orly or anyone in this battle of the Republic.If you want an education on what has transpired and an objective look at the main players.read the posts here– http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-thread-comments-not-on-topic-of.html Orly has showed her true colors many times over.That said,as much as I like Phil’s coverage,I tend to avoid the comments section as it has been infested with dubious commenters from day one.You hit below the belt on this one,as Phil is the only Constitutionalist blogger around that allows a platform for those of your ilk to spew venom on Americans simply asking the government to uphold the laws of the land.
• brygenon says:

  September 26, 2009 at 3:41 am

  Mr. Tickles says:

  Anti-Orly bias of Miss Tickly:

  Who should we believe, an anonymous person (Miss Tickly) who accuses Orly of working for Obama or a person who risked all by making themselves visible in the fight? How do we know Miss Tickly isn’t the real Obama diversion?! Consider the sources of your beliefs folks.

  Berg and Taitz have each suggested the other is actually working for Obama.

  What’s more, on Sept 15 Taitz blogged about “EXPOSING THE OBOTS DRESSED AS PATRIOTS”. Her list included “Phil from TheRightSideofLife”. Yes, Orly has figured out that our host is an under-cover obot.

  Phil, you sure had me fooled.
• Albino Lion says:

  September 26, 2009 at 3:34 am

  Black Lion said: “He released the COLB, legal proof of birth to the entire world.” ———— You are sticking with that story–huh ? You people[black lion,practical kat,et al.,] here are paid too much.Never any codes or statutes for our perusal.Never any tangible facts that are concrete.Just references to websites and hearsay.
• Bob says:

  September 26, 2009 at 12:32 am

  … the privacy excpetion does not apply when there is a public interest strong enough to outweigh an individuals’ interest.

  And the opinion letter goes on to say that will almost never occur when HIPAA is implicated.
• Sharon 2 says:

  September 25, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  Interesting again.

  I can’t cut and paste so I will just retype some:

  III. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SUBJECT TO HIPAA

  A. Standards for Determining What Must be Disclosed

  … the privacy excpetion does not apply when there is a public interest strong enough to outweigh an individuals’ interest.

  http://www.state.hi.us/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2003-05.pdf
• Bob says:

  September 25, 2009 at 8:57 pm

  All records pertaining to the eligibility of Obama as a qualified president should also be available.

  Except that’s not what the law says.

  In Obama’s case, what significant privacy interest is there in documents proving eligibility when one must be a natural born citizen to be eligible?

  Hawaii has defined that privacy interest by restricting access (except to index data). Change Hawaii’s privacy laws if you disagree.

  Even if a significant privacy interest is found, Fukino REVEALED information from the vital records.

  Saying a person named Barack Obama was born in Hawaii doesn’t violate Hawaiian law, as that’s index data.

  The Obama campaign released a COLB. Waiver…

  Waivers must be explicit.

  Fukino either acted in violation of the UIPA statute (which is criminal and states that very clearly)

  If that’s the case, she be liable to prosecution. Doesn’t mean Obama’s birth certificate will be released.

  This is the purpose of open records law: to keep people honest.

  Except when counterbalanced by privacy interests, just like FOIA laws.

  Fukino has to back up what she said by public records or be criminally held accountable.

  Or, much more likely, neither.

  Whatever happens with her, the Obama capmaign released the COLB.

  Which proved he was born in Hawaii.
• Sharon 2 says:

  September 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm

  I have been reading through advisory opinions and came across something interesting. To avoid voter fraud in Hawaii, a registrant must prove among other things, U.S. citizenship. [Citizenship was not at issue, just the request for computer tapes containing data furnished in voter registration affidavits, including the affidavit signed by the voter claiming citizenship]. “The register of voters, and all records appertaining to the registry of voters, …” are open to inspection.

  http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2090-22.pdf

  This is to ensure that VOTER FRAUD has not occurred! All records pertaining to the eligibility of Obama as a qualified president should also be available. I have seen analysis in opinions finding that the public interest outweighs the significant personal privacy interest in personal information. In Obama’s case, what significant privacy interest is there in documents proving eligibility when one must be a natural born citizen to be eligible? Even if a significant privacy interest is found, Fukino REVEALED information from the vital records. The Obama campaign released a COLB. Waiver… Fukino either acted in violation of the UIPA statute (which is criminal and states that very clearly) or the information was not of a significant private nature. This is the purpose of open records law: to keep people honest. Fukino has to back up what she said by public records or be criminally held accountable. Whatever happens with her, the Obama capmaign released the COLB.

  I am writing this quickly, with distractions. I suggest that anyone interested actually look at these advisory letters and compare them to the monumental issue here: the eligibility of Barack Obama.
• Mr. Tickles says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  Anti-Orly bias of Miss Tickly:

  Who should we believe, an anonymous person (Miss Tickly) who accuses Orly of working for Obama or a person who risked all by making themselves visible in the fight? How do we know Miss Tickly isn’t the real Obama diversion?! Consider the sources of your beliefs folks.

  Mr. Tickles
• Black Lion says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:30 pm

  da verg says:
  September 25, 2009 at 7:11 pm
  Donofrio wants the “index data,” which is the name and sex of the registrant of the vital event. Is it really necessary to sue to find out that Hawaii issued a birth certificate for a male child named Barack Obama?

  >>>no he doesn’t, he wants much more than that. He wants to know how HI ammended OBAMA’s birth records, and why they did it. This is not vital information and it , per law, should be made available because HI statute over rules the lower laws. He is going after a red herring IMHO it is a trap that will contain altered contrived information to make OBama look good, but can’t be proven.

  JPX claims to have found the missing divorce papers showing that jurisdiction of obama was proven containing evidence of his birth. Why would the pages be missing in the first place? Who removed them, and for what reason? Could it be that it mentioned that his birth was in Kenya and someone wanted to hide that fact?

  Why did Obama’s grandmother in an affadavit say she was there in Kenya to witness his birth?

  Why does Kenya have a birth certificate for OBAMA?

  Why did Obama’s mother register for classes in August of 1961 in Seattle area when she supposedly just had a baby in Hawaii?

  Why did the 1961 newspaper list an address that OBAMA and his mother never lived at?

  Why does OBAMA hide a $12 birth certificate , by spending millions of dollars for a document American produce every day?

  Why does OBAMA not claim, as many of the OBOTS on this board do in ANY OF HIS ARGUMENTS in the hundreds of cases against him that NBC citizen means the same thing these OBOTS are saying it means?? DOH–because the OBOTS here are wrong about their definition of NBC and even OBAMA knows it.

  Why does OBAMA in his resolution for McCain’s eligibility sign off on fact the both Leahy AND Chertoff state the correct definition of NBC which is requiring both parents to be US citizens? Sort of puts a nail in the coffin of OBOTS here that say otherwise. OBAMA won’t even buy off on that , it’s a stretch and OBAMA knows it.
  ____________________________________________________________________
  It is amazing how many time the same lies and disproven facts are repeated. I think the birthers think if the repeat things enough time and click their heels, then it may become fact.

  First of all it is the so called group AXJ that claims that they found the so called missing divorce papers. If you are going to cite a fringe group, you should pick the right one. They have been making this claim for months without providing any proof. Kind of like when Ed Hale claimed he found bigfoot back in the 90’s. Just saying something doesn’t make it true.

  President Obama’s step-grandmother never claimed she was at the President’s birth. The only one still pushing this lie is Orly. This has been discredited. She never signed an affidavit and on the tape it is quite clear that she says he was born in Hawaii.

  What Kenyan BC? Was it the one from the convicted forger Lucas Smith? Or was it the one that was made from a BC from Australia? Which so called Kenyan BC are we talking about? There have been numerous fakes. And has any Kenyan official certified any of them? Because under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) unless an official of Kenya or the State Department certifies it, it is inadmissible.

  Now you are pushing the fake address theory. It was proven that the President’s grandparents did live at that address.

  He released the COLB, legal proof of birth to the entire world. It is only less than 1% of the population that doesn’t believe it.

  The resolution does not say that. It is specific to the case of McCain. If we all recall unlike President Obama, who was born in the US, McCain was not born in America. So he needed a Senate resolution. That is the difference.
• Bob says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:28 pm

  no he doesn’t, he wants much more than that.

  But that’s all he’s entitled to.

  He wants to know how HI ammended OBAMA’s birth records, and why they did it.

  Except there’s no evidence that ever happened.

  JPX claims to have found the missing divorce papers showing that jurisdiction of obama was proven containing evidence of his birth.

  And where are these “missing papers”?

  Why would the pages be missing in the first place?

  May possible reasons; clerical error being the most likely. Doesn’t demonstrate ineligibility.

  Why did Obama’s grandmother in an affadavit say she was there in Kenya to witness his birth?

  She never signed an affadavit. The word you are looking for is “hearsay.”

  Why does Kenya have a birth certificate for OBAMA?

  It doesn’t.

  Why did Obama’s mother register for classes in August of 1961 in Seattle area when she supposedly just had a baby in Hawaii?

  Many possible reasons, none of which demonstrate ineligibility.

  Why did the 1961 newspaper list an address that OBAMA and his mother never lived at?

  The one her parents lived at? Because no teenager has ever lived with their parents.

  Why does OBAMA hide a $12 birth certificate , by spending millions of dollars for a document American produce every day?

  Because Obama hasn’t spent millions of dollars on any such thing.

  Why does OBAMA not claim, as many of the OBOTS on this board do in ANY OF HIS ARGUMENTS in the hundreds of cases against him that NBC citizen means the same thing these OBOTS are saying it means??

  Because he’s too busy winning on standing arguments.

  Why does OBAMA in his resolution for McCain’s eligibility sign off on fact the both Leahy AND Chertoff state the correct definition of NBC which is requiring both parents to be US citizens

  Neither stated that was the correct definition but rather someone with two citizen parents was natural born. Proptor hoc.

  Qaudaffi calls him a “son of Kenya” not a grand son of kenya.

  How does Gaddafi know? Was he in the delivery room in Mombasa? (And does “metaphorically speaking” ring any bells? Is a “son of a gun” the offspring of a firearm?)
• Black Lion says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:14 pm

  12th Generation AMERICAN says:
  September 25, 2009 at 6:32 pm
  I looked it up:

  “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

  Chalk one up for Dr. Fukino.

  So Obama is a natural born citizen of Kenya?!?!?
  __________________________________________________________________
  No, as Dr. Fukino stated President Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a natural born citizen. You are correct, chalk up one for Dr. Fukino for stating what everyone else knows. President Obama, born in Hawaii, over 35, lived in America for over 14 years, eligible to be President.
• da verg says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  Donofrio wants the “index data,” which is the name and sex of the registrant of the vital event. Is it really necessary to sue to find out that Hawaii issued a birth certificate for a male child named Barack Obama?

  >>>no he doesn’t, he wants much more than that. He wants to know how HI ammended OBAMA’s birth records, and why they did it. This is not vital information and it , per law, should be made available because HI statute over rules the lower laws. He is going after a red herring IMHO it is a trap that will contain altered contrived information to make OBama look good, but can’t be proven.

  JPX claims to have found the missing divorce papers showing that jurisdiction of obama was proven containing evidence of his birth. Why would the pages be missing in the first place? Who removed them, and for what reason? Could it be that it mentioned that his birth was in Kenya and someone wanted to hide that fact?

  Why did Obama’s grandmother in an affadavit say she was there in Kenya to witness his birth?

  Why does Kenya have a birth certificate for OBAMA?

  Why did Obama’s mother register for classes in August of 1961 in Seattle area when she supposedly just had a baby in Hawaii?

  Why did the 1961 newspaper list an address that OBAMA and his mother never lived at?

  Why does OBAMA hide a $12 birth certificate , by spending millions of dollars for a document American produce every day?

  Why does OBAMA not claim, as many of the OBOTS on this board do in ANY OF HIS ARGUMENTS in the hundreds of cases against him that NBC citizen means the same thing these OBOTS are saying it means?? DOH–because the OBOTS here are wrong about their definition of NBC and even OBAMA knows it.

  Why does OBAMA in his resolution for McCain’s eligibility sign off on fact the both Leahy AND Chertoff state the correct definition of NBC which is requiring both parents to be US citizens? Sort of puts a nail in the coffin of OBOTS here that say otherwise. OBAMA won’t even buy off on that , it’s a stretch and OBAMA knows it.

  And today, we find out that OBAMA sells out the USA
  in his speech before the UN
  Qaudaffi calls him a “son of Kenya” not a grand son of kenya. More proof?
  Why did the Kenya adm. also call him born in Kenya?
  Why is the Kenya assembly drawing up allegiances on OBAMA?

  Alot of stuff here that the lame street media won’t report on.

  It’s pretty obvious IMHO we have a usurper in office
  and our gutless judges refuse to demonstrate any cajones to do
  anything about it while he pillages our coffers, passes laws to throw us in jail if we don’t go along with his neo maoist neo natzi agenda, brainwashes our children with sing songs and speeches, sets up youth camps, and civilian prison camps, and finally he’s running the afganistan war completely into the ground on purpose.

  The man has to go, time to step down.
• brygenon says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  Transparasaurus rex says:

  The quibbling over the authority of Black’s Law Dictionary is amusing. Black’s is what is known as a secondary authority. Amazingly, the primary authority is still a court of law! I can just imagine, “But your honor, Black’s says…” being laughed out of chambers, or held in contempt. Definitions are not decisions: let the courts rule on the facts and merits.

  Compare what happens in the Court of Transparasaurus’s imagination to the actual outcome in real court. Just last week a federal court said, “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.” Transparasaurus’s description of “laughed out of chambers” seems apt, but he has the sides exactly backwards. In court “the birther movement” (as the Court called it last week), are the people failing every single time.

  Transparasaurus, you could learn from Black’s Law Dictionary and avoid such epic failure. Yes it’s a secondary authority, meaning it is derived from the primary authorities. Since you are not competent at legal scholarship and thus cannot track the primary authorities yourself, it’s just the kind of reference that could help you.
• Black Lion says:

  September 25, 2009 at 7:10 pm

  William says:
  September 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  What the heck are you talking about? Maybe you just posted your comments on the wrong blog and didn’t notice what THIS blog was all about: Upon what basis did the Hawaiian Director of Health issue her proclamation that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen? Given how you seem to post the same comments and diatribe on about every TRSOL entry, you might want to start READING what each entry is about and consider the subject BEFORE adding comments that often contribute nothing practical to the discussion.

  Leo Donofrio is talking about the right of a citizen and the requirement of the HI government, under its own laws, to produce whatever documents support the official declaration:
  ___________________________________________________________________

  William, maybe you should read before you comment. My post was in response to a post by another commenter. The original comment attempted to discredit Dr. Fukino by implying that she was involved with the movement for Hawaii’s independence and that would be the reason she would make the comments she did and “cover” for the President. See below. My point was that she reposted a comment that she could not source or back up in any way. Which was an attack on Dr.Fukino’s character. I would advise you to read before you post on something you are obviously unaware of. Secondly your commentary, while entertaining, has no basis in fact or law.

  Leo is wrong. Anyone with a legal background can see the only information if any he will get is the same information on the COLB. You can believe in him, which is your right. However what case has he won? I believe that he always comes up with these ideas and theories that never amount to anything. I guess we can wait and see if this is the time that the broken clock is right and Leo finally gets lucky.

  Black Lion says:
  September 25, 2009 at 9:34 am
  Mimi says:
  September 25, 2009 at 6:42 am
  There is an interesting comment on Leo’s blog. Apparently, Fukino is very involved with the movement for Hawaii’s independence. The commenter speculated that keeping mum about Obama’s records was a deal done in exchange for Obama’s not standing in the way of the independence movement.
  ________________________________________________________________
  Of course the commenter provided proof to support their comment, right? Because if they didn’t, then that comment means nothing. It is not even plausable. I could comment right now that Leo is a communist and didn’t graduate from law school. Your first question would be where is the proof. And since I don’t have any proof because I made that up, you would be justified in saying that my comment is not true. Since the person that posted that comment did not provide any proof, then her comment is unbelievable. As a matter of fact that comment was probably an attempt to discredit Dr. Fukino because she stated that “President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii”.
• da verg says:

  September 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  President is attempting to create a 3rd class that doesn’t exist in the law today.

  >>>The Constitution defined this OVER 200 years ago, you can’t USE TODAY, you have to go back to the MINDSET of the FRAMERS and the laws on citizenship at that point in time. Once again you fail to address the CONSTITUTION which says for PRESIDENT you have to be 35 yrs old, a natural born citizen and if not a natural born citizen then a citizen at the time of the Constitution adoption. Therefore by VERY SIMPLE LOGIC the you have to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN or another type of citizen which was NOT NATURAL BORN. And at the time of the Consitution there were ONLY TWO TYPES OF CITIZENS, as you state. THERE WERE NO NATURALIZED CITIZENS. So by this logic the only OTHER CLASS of CITIZENS were those naturally born here by PARENTS WHO WERE NOT US CITIZENS. THAT IS IT. NOTHING MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. YOU CAN NOT USE TODAY’s hodgepodge of citizens BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXIST 200 + years ago. So it is pretty clear that the FRAMERS were following VATTEL and LEAHY’s definition that two US parents must be citizens to have a natural born citizen. Furthermore, by your “defintion” McCain wouldn’t even be a natural born citizen because he wasn’t born in the states. “Natural born Citizen” refers to parents hertitage, as WELL as the soil you were born on. If Castro had a son on American soil that son would have allegiance to Castro, he would NOT be a natural born US citizen. He would have DUAL citizenship.
  Get a clue you clueless people. It’s been taught this way in CIVICS class since the turn of last century. Oh i forgot, they don’t teach CIVICS classes anymore in the USA.

  know you know why!
• da verg says:

  September 25, 2009 at 6:49 pm

  da verg says:
  September 25, 2009 at 4:02 pm
  *but there is a BIG difference
  between natural born citizens, native born citizens,and naturalized citizens. *

  No, da verg, there are only two. Native and Naturalized. The Native Born citizens ARE the Natural Born Citizens. There aren’t 3 classes of citizen, only two. Insisting there are Native born citizens who are not eligible to be President is attempting to create a 3rd class that doesn’t exist in the law today.
  >>>not according to the constitution requirements for being president, stick to the Constitution, quit spinning out.
  Natural born and native born are two completely different definitions: the former are of two american parents who are citizen, the latter are born in America which have no or one american citizen parent. So you are wrong, again.