“Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action…government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities… Once corrective information is introduced, large numbers of people can be shifted to different views.”

Sunstein and his minions, of course, are to be the secret arbiters of what constitutes acceptable views; and if your understanding of the world is not theirs, too darn bad: your tax-dollars are going to pay for your re-education, whether you know it or not, at the hands of deceivers of similar calibre to smrstrauss\ann\ann1. However, government indoctrination must fail if its re-educators oppose facts with nothing better than deceitful “explanations” (such as we’ve been offered by smrstrauss\ann\ann1) which sound manufactured: “a mistake” , “they might have“, “may simply be” , “you say this but“, “illegal does not make the statements lies“, “plenty of reasons“, “impossible to say“, “only you that thinks“, “possible explanation“, “mistake in answering“, “you have no“, “perhaps Obama gave permission“, “you could be wrong” etc. As someone recently commented elsewhere at TRSoL: “One of the differences between the truth and a cover story is that a cover story needs to be adjusted as new facts come to light whereas the truth is only further confirmed by additional facts.”

“I am shocked, shocked, that a Republican governor’s administration should be so corrupt.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

smrstrauss’s attempt at irony (which he used during the 2004 election campaign) is wasted on me. Obama’s (in)eligibility is a constitutional and legal issue, not a party political issue. I never refer to party politics when discussing Obama’s (in)eligibility, only the law. Conversely, smrstrauss inadvertently shows all the partizan loyalties (recall 2004?) needed to qualify for a Sunstein paycheck.

“[OIP, which supervises and enforces...UIPA, has officially acknowledged...that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.] First, only you say this.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Correction: the Hawaii Office of Information Practices says this:

“HAWAII OIP UIPA MANUAL

Guideline To Respond To A Formal Request

(1) Where agency will disclose all or part of the record, the notice must include: (a) Where or how the record or copies will be made available…
(2) Where agency is denying access to all or part of a record, the notice must identify: (a) The specific record or part that will not be disclosed; and (b) The §92F-13 exception that allows withholding (and any other applicable laws) and a brief explanation (a few words) of why the agency cited that exception.
(3) Where agency is unable to disclose the record or part of the record, the notice must state that: a) The agency does not maintain the record; (b) The agency requires a further description…; or (c) The request requires the agency to create a summary…” [Pages 30-39]

Which led to these OIP e-mails to MissT :

From: oip@hawaii.gov Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:36:47 -1000

“…If the agency [i.e. DoH] does not have any such documents they should say so. Linden H. Joesting Staff Attorney…”

“From: oip@hawaii.gov Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:33:58 -1000

…Yes, you may ask for a copy of the invoice and receipt [for Obama's amendment fees]. If the agency has the documents in electronic form, or can easily convert the documents into an electronic form, then they may send it to you electronically. If no amendments were made, there would not be any such documents and the agency should inform you of that fact. Linden H. Joesting Staff Attorney…”

An OIP Staff Attorney’s official position is that “If [DoH] does not have any such documents they should say so” and “If the agency has the documents…they may send it to you…If no amendments were made, there would not be any such documents“. The OIP UIPA Manual allows only four relevant options for DoH to answer UIPA requests. No existing record of Obama seeking to amend his filing would have returned a standardized UIPA answer: “…no records responsive to the request…“. Denial of access to the record of Obama seeking to amend his filing confirms the record’s existence, thus allowing for appeal to OIP or legal action. MissT was denied access to records documenting Obama’s amendment fees, meaning MissT was informed of the fact of their existence, and they may be obtained on further appeal to OIP or the courts. The refusal of smrstrauss\ann\ann1 to admit this demonstrates an inability to follow a sane and logical train of thought or displays more of his characteristic deceitfulness.

“You simply have a statement of denial, which you say means there is a record, but might not be for plenty of reasons.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Apart from the fact that smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s language tests logic to breaking, DoH is not permitted to play around with UIPA; it must follow the law or face legal action. See immediately above.

“…there is no confirmation. You could be wrong on the law, or they could, or there could simply be a mistake in answering ‘denied’.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

The OIP Manual is unambiguous in its description of how agencies should respond to UIPA requests. What is really pathetic is smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s total unconcern at the notion that DoH has been “mistaken” in its handling of UIPA requests but his persistence with the loop that DoH cannot be “mistaken” about Obama’s vital records.

“Steve Dunham.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

No tactical distractions, please: I am not interested in, and have no intention of discussing, anyone named Steve Dunham. My concern is the Presidential (in)eligibility and the citizenship status of the person known as BH Obama Jr.

“[Nelson] said that she was told [a Stanley gave birth to a son]. But this confirms the [DoH] statements…” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

smrstrauss\ann\ann1 seems to be have trouble accepting that whoever told the doctor who told Nelson that “Stanley gave birth to a son” made no reference to where this son was born. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 should drop Nelson: to imagine readers will be persuaded by such an obvious non sequitur only demonstrates contempt for readers’ intelligence.

“Re: ‘Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database…’ So sue them. .” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Readers can join the effort to sue Hawaii DoH at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

“This is interesting…maybe you can get a non-certified copy of the COLB. If you think that this refers to the original birth certificate, sue, but you could be wrong.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

The fact that Hawaii DoH defied both Hawaii law and widespread public concern by withholding its Vital Records Regulations until November 2009, and the fact that all through this controversy DoH has been able under its own authority to issue a non-certified informational birth certificate to anyone who applies, smrstrauss\ann\ann1 merely finds “interesting”. Although DoH’s authority to issue an informational birth certificate is printed in its own Regulations (which stops smrstrauss\ann\ann1 from calling it “mistaken”), whether “interesting” or “mistaken” or “deceptive” this is still not problematical enough for smrstrauss\ann\ann1 to refrain from looping his belief in DoH’s supposed credibility.

Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) from 1976 (still in force) pre-dates COLBs, which began circulating in 2001. The 1976 Regulations permits DoH complete discretion over the information it can include within a non-certified birth certificate, except that parental approval for the parent’s address must be sought, no information can be included which the DoH Director (Fukino) considers may harm the character or reputation of the subject of the birth certificate, and the birth certificate of an illegitimate child cannot be issued. On the assumption that no information within Obama’s 1961 birth certificate harms his character or reputation, and sure in the knowledge that Hawaii law and its courts have never and could never deem Obama illegitimate, without any need for permission from Obama himself Hawaii DoH could have resolved the constitutional uncertainty and controversy surrounding Obama’s citizenship and Presidential (in)eligibility by issuing a non-certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. DoH preferred to issue a statement which, before and after, DoH claimed it was illegal for it to issue, while hiding the Regulations which allow it to do more than issue such a statement. This is more than “interesting”, it is either acting illegally or lying: a problem which smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s looping argumentum ad nauseam is unable to address.

“Re: “Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.” Again, you say this but absolutely no one else does… Moreover, you have not shown whether the fee structure in 1961 was the same as now. For example, they might have charged fees for everything in 1961 regardless of who made the error or the change.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

smrstrauss\ann\ann1 is attempting to distract readers, given Obama was in no position to pay charges in 1961 for an amendment to his filing and DoH has denied access to the records which document the charges Obama himself paid for amendment(s).

First, the year 1961 is not when Obama paid to amend his filing with DoH: for smrstrauss\ann\ann1 to suggest otherwise is to attempt to deceive readers.

Second, the only fees (other than for amendments) stipulated in DoH Regulations are the charges for certificates and for searching DoH files. The charge for amendments as follows:

Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.11 Fees for amendments: A. A charge of $3 shall be made for each request for amendment for an item or group of items on a given certificate. B. No fee shall be charged when it is determined that the registrant, parent, guardian, or informant was not responsible for the error or omission or for minor administrative changes corrected by the local registrar during routine filing and editing procedure or a child’s name is added within one year after the date of birth.

An honest person would gladly retract all comments which are inconsistent with the facts, not ignore the inconsistencies in the sly manner of smrstrauss\ann\ann1.

“As to what is [a] major or minor [amendment]. Say that the family did not include the middle name at the time of birth and then wanted to add the middle name, is this major or minor? Whatever, it is a possible explanation.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

The facts show that smrstrauss\ann\ann1 can have no possible explanation.

Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.1 Amendments After Official Acceptance of Certificate: All certificates on which major or judicial administrative changes are made ninety days or more from the date of the event shall be marked ‘altered’ unless otherwise provided by law or regulations [HRS 338-16 text below]. All certificates on which minor administrative changes are made six months or later following the date of the event shall be similarly marked.

Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.5 Major administrative amendments include…(B)(5) Change in the given name(s) of registrant [Obama] ninety days or more after date of birth.

Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.5 Minor administrative amendments include… (C) Change in given names prior to ninety days of age.

“the law may simply be that the amendment summary applies to the document in the files and does NOT apply to the COLB…” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Given that smrstrauss\ann\ann1 is adamant that “not only is the COLB an official birth certificate, it is the official birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues…” then his speculation that an amendment summary “does NOT apply to the COLB” is without any basis in fact (and no honest retraction from smrstrauss\ann\ann1 is expected). Hawaii law is clear:

Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-16 “Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates…which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain…the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”. (b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.”

“You have not shown that amendment summaries must be attached to COLBs.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

On December 28, 2009 smrstrauss\ann\ann1 wrote: “If you find a Hawaii COLB from someone else that was amended and has the reasons for the amendment on it, you might have some evidence….” The requested evidence was produced in the form of a photograph of a known-to-be-genuine COLB: http://tinyurl.com/COLB-Amended Therefore I most certainly have shown an amendment summary printed on a Hawaii COLB itself as the law requires. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 does not remember or does not want to remember this fact. Given he is a proved deceiver, readers may judge why smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s memory has betrayed him.

“[A COLB] is proof to responsible government agencies…” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Given Hawaii DoH have confirmed through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended date of birth, then the following Hawaii statute applies:

HRS 338-17 “Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

No statement or opinion issued by Hawaii DoH officials has the authority to make Obama’s alleged COLB evidence (much less “proof”) of anything. Until it has not been investigated by the relevant authorities, no responsible state or federal authority should accord Obama’s alleged COLB a status it is denied in Hawaii.

“Obama has shown the official birth certificate [Certification i.e. COLB] that Hawaii sent him…and he probably thinks that this is sufficient. I certainly do.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Hawaii DoH have never acknowledged that they sent Obama a COLB, even though it has the legal authority to issue a non-certified copy of his more probative 1961 filing. Online scans and photographs of any document, Obama’s alleged COLB included, are not the “proof” smrstrauss\ann\ann1 claims them to be. The online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are riddled with anomalies consistent with forgery, not least the missing amendment summary which by law should have been included; which, had it been included, would have stripped the alleged COLB of the status of evidence (HRS 338-17). Sufficient? It should not be a surprise that a political partizan such as smrstrauss\ann\ann1, with a track record of deception, here contradicts himself (as will be described below) in order to adjust the facts to deceit.

“You know of course that neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens…” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

On March 5, 2009 smrstrauss\ann\ann1 wrote (assuming smrstrauss\ann\ann1 has not stolen smrstrauss’s identity), quoting Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown was an English subject…”

and quoting from Dicey (Conflict of Laws):

“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence…”

On March 9, 2009 smrstrauss\ann\ann1 then wrote:

“I have pointed out that in…the States under the Articles of Confederation [first US Constitution of 1781], there were citizenship laws [therein]…exactly the same as [for] a Natural Born Subject under British common law…[and] the Articles of Confederation…said: ‘the free inhabitants of each of these States…shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.’ Read literally, it means that ordinary inhabitants are entitled to the privileges of citizens.”

Given the term “free inhabitant” as used in 1781 was a synonym for “citizen”, smrstrauss\ann\ann1 must agree that under the Anglo-sphere common law which he cites, natural born subjects of the King of Ireland (where Jackson’s parents were born) had all the rights and privileges of natural born subjects of that same British monarch in the Carolinas (where Jackson was born in 1767). Jackson’s father died three months before his son was born, but had he lived on till the Articles of Confederation was promulgated (as did his wife) he would have automatically become a US citizen. This applied to all US Presidents whose parents were born before Independence. It applied to Andrew Jackson, his mother, and his father (had he lived on). smrstrauss\ann\ann1 has made himself a liar by his own words at Apuzzo’s blog in March 2009, unless he claims he is only masquerading as that person.

“Re: ‘the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federal Rules of Evidence.’ So you say. No one else does.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

A real case decided by federal judges in March 2009:

Person A was convicted of a serious crime in the US; the US wanted to deport him. The US introduced as evidence that A was foreign born an official application for permanent residence (from 30 years ago) prepared on behalf of Person A by Person B, who was married to A’s mother (but not at the time of birth). In the application B states in writing that A was born in a foreign country. The application as a document is one level of hearsay, the statement within the document as to birthplace is hearsay within hearsay. Is the statement within the application document that A was born in a foreign country admissible evidence? No, said the US Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in March 2009, such hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible:

“[A]…asserts that the district court erred when it admitted the Application…under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). We agree. …the Application can be said to document the activities of a governmental agency and to document the observations of a responsible government officer to some extent. That would allow admission of the document [under Rule 803(8)]…However, the only part of the document truly relevant here is [B]’s hearsay statement that [A] was born in and was a citizen of [another country]. [B], of course, had no governmental duties whatsoever. The government’s contention that the Application is admissible under the business records exception [803(6)] contains the same flaw. In either case, there is at least one more layer of hearsay, and to be admissible there must be an exception for that layer also … However, the government made no attempt…to argue that the statements of [B] are admissible as a result of some other hearsay exception [therefore] we are constrained to find error in the admission of the statements of [B]. Moreover, the error was prejudicial…the Application was the only evidence admitted at trial which tended to show [A was foreign born and] absent the improperly admitted hearsay, [A] would not have suffered a conviction… Thus, we must reverse… ” [emphasis applied] http://tinyurl.com/US-9thCA-MP

The parallels with Obama’s alleged COLB:

1) The hearsay within hearsay of the alleged COLB’s first and most important line is not covered by FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8) because the original supplier of Obama’s registration information (family member) was not employed by Hawaii DoH and was not constrained by a public service or business duty to be reliable and trustworthy, as Rules 803(6) or 803(8) demand. It should be remembered that “…the burden is on the proponent [Obama] to produce evidence [by a preponderance] of trustworthiness” (US v. Hancho C. Kim, US Appeals D.C.,1979.)

2) The only part of Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth (if it exists) “truly relevant here” is the first line, reading “CERTIFICATE No. 151 1961 014641“. Note that the CertificATION’s first line significantly does not read “CertificATION No. [etc.]“. Obama’s purported COLB is a CertificATION (and hearsay we shall assume hypothetically exempted by Rule 803(9)), referencing a birth CERTIFICATE not in evidence and its serial number: by definition hearsay within hearsay. Given Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth (if it exists) draws its evidential value exclusively from the original birth CERTIFICATE of 1961 (which is not in evidence), the COLB by itself proves nothing and has no possibility of proving anything, since it was created 46 years after Obama’s birth. To attempt to “solve” this problem generally DoH has ensured that CertificATIONS of Live Birth reference the prior CERTIFICATE containing the witnesses’ signatures etc., and in this case Obama’s from 1961; unfortunately for Obama this creates a new problem of hearsay within hearsay. As we saw from the real-life example just given, this hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible under any relevant FRE-HRE hearsay exceptions: Rules 803(6), 803(8), or 803(9).

“The [COLB's] seal is on the back, and it is clearly visible in the…the third photo from the top [of FactCheck's web page].” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

I wasn’t referring to FactCheck photograph #3: take a look at FactCheck photograph #1. Anyone with eyes can establish for themselves that there is no discernable seal in the first photograph from the top of FactCheck’s web page: nobody but nobody can show a seal in FactCheck photograph #1. It is impossible that there can be a genuine seal in any other FactCheck photograph if there is no seal, genuine or faked, on the alleged COLB in the first photograph. As there is no seal in that first photo, so there cannot be a genuine seal in any other FactCheck photo. Given smrstrauss\ann\ann1 himself concedes that “it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not [i.e. genuine]…” and “DoH cannot say that it [the seal image in the FactCheck photo] is real or not from the image…“, only a dupe would take smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s self-contradictory word that the third photo of FactCheck’s web page contains a genuine seal.

“Re: ‘delayed’. Only you say that it was delayed.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

smrstrauss\ann\ann1 was invited some time ago to obtain from Hawaii DoH the UIPA notification that there are “…no records responsive to the request…” for Obama’s delayed filing rather than this request being “denied in its entirety“. Until readers are informed that DoH dis-confirm the delayed filing it has already confirmed exists, they can be sure that Obama loyalists (including smrstrauss\ann\ann1) have been unable to obtain that dis-confirmation.

“Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB.” …They have stated that the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

At no time has an official at Hawaii DoH (i.e. Fukino or Onaka) stated that “the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.” This is another example of smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s hopeless struggle with the truth. If Hawaii DoH wants to verify the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB it has independant authority under under Hawaii Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) to issue a non-certified informational copy of Obama’s 1961 filing; gnomic and inconclusive statements in preference to this action are designed to obscure rather than enlighten the public.

“Re: ‘officials who have either been acting illegally or lying.’ There is absolutely no evidence that the officials in Hawaii were lying…” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

Given his track record of political partizanship and deception, smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s reluctance to apply logic to the the problem of Hawaii DoH’s statements and credibility is understandable — but we must insist he find a logical solution. If on every occasion before and after Fukino’s July statement she (through her spokesperson Okubo) has insisted (on the purported advice of the Hawaii AG) that any statement concerning Obama’s vital records is illegal, then Fukino’s July statement is illegal. If Fukino’s July statement is not illegal, then Fukino (through Okubo) has lied about such statements being illegal. If Fukino and Okubo have been either acting illegally or lying, then all credibility has been forfeited. smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s current “solution” to the problem is to suggest Fukino and Okubo have made a “mistake” and that we should restore their credibility. This answer doesn’t solve the logical problem. If the public servants in these responsible positions are capable of such appalling “mistakes”, then in what else are they “mistaken”?

To save the credibility of Fukino and Okubo smrstrauss\ann\ann1 must close the logical problem with a solution that is something better than they were “acting illegally”, “lying”, or “mistaken”. As smrstrauss\ann\ann1 himself said, this should be “interesting”, especially when the Hawaii Deputy AG has refused to support the legal definition used in Fukino’s statement.

“Only if you can prove that he was NOT born in the USA can you take that [legal status in the USA] away.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

This only makes sense if there is an existing legal status to take away: the claimant must establish US citizenship first. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 himself states that “it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not [i.e. genuine]…” and “DoH cannot say that it [the seal image in the FactCheck photo] is real or not from the image…“, so it is clear that Obama has not yet produced anything which is evidence of his birth in Hawaii. The burden of proof falls upon Obama to prove that he is a U.S. citizen. The requisite evidence (according to 22 CFR §51.43 ) is a legal birth certificate recorded at the time of birth or shortly thereafter; failing that, baptismal certificates, documents created shortly after birth but not more than 5 years after birth, together with affidavits of persons (parent, older sibling, physician, nurse, midwife etc.) having personal knowledge of the facts of the birth, may be acceptable secondary evidence. (Early school records showing the date and place of birth may also possibly be acceptable.) If not, Obama must seek declaratory judgment of his US citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 360 [8 USC 1503]:

“a) If any person who is within the United States claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege by any department or independent agency, or official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person may institute an action under [28 USC. § 2201] against the head of such department or independent agency for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States…”

As noted by the US Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in Sanchez-Martinez v. INS, 1983:

“The allocation of the initial burden of proof flows from the nature of the proceeding. In the de novo hearing in district court, the [alleged] citizen is in the position of a plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment [under 28 USC. § 2201]. He or she bears the initial burden of proof…”

Given no supporting evidence was provided to legally complete Obama’s delayed (now called “late”) filing he would be forced to provide secondary evidence: however, Obama not being baptized, not being born in a hospital or attended by medical personnel (they would have completed the filing), not having any living parent or an older sibling, and not having his kindergarten records (unfortunately “missing” from Noelani School files), leaves very little if any secondary evidence available for Obama to sustain his burden of proof. Which may account for Ex-Scotland Yard Detective Sankey (now a US citizen) discovering that 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama in Illinois are associated with two Social Security numbers (beginning 042 and 364), and six addresses for Barack Obama in California (near Occidental College) are associated with three Social Security numbers (beginning 537, 999, and 364). The 042 number belongs to someone from Connecticut born in 1890.

In a March 2009 US Government Accountability Office Report into passport fraud (GAO-09-447), a GAO “investigator was easily able to obtain four genuine U.S. passports using counterfeit or fraudulently obtained documents…[the GAO] investigator obtained a U.S. passport using counterfeit documents and the SSN of a man who died in 1965. In another case, [the GAO] undercover investigator obtained a U.S. passport using counterfeit documents and the genuine SSN of a fictitious 5-year-old child—even though his counterfeit documents and application indicated he was 53 years old… [The Dep't of State] issued a genuine U.S. passport in each case…to the same GAO investigator, under four different names.” [emphasis applied]

First, only you say this. There is no confirmation that it is true. Second, as WAYK has asserted repeatedly, the officials in Hawaii have broken the law on something, such as telling the truth. Why not on this? In other words, they could be saying “denied” when there is absolutely nothing, and this could be either (1) illegal, or (2) simply a mistake.

Elsewhere there is a birther who claims that Obama’s real name must
be “Steve Dunham” because of the same thing, a “denied” reply. Yet there is a simple answer for this, there is a file somewhere in the Hawaii birth records for a “Steve Dunham,” but it is not necessarily Obama. It simply is another guy. It is absolutely clear that the request was only for a record of “Steve Dunham” within the Obama file? No. If not, could the Hawaii officials interpret the question to mean any Steve Dunhams ever born in Hawaii? Yes.

This being the case in the Dunham example and in your case, you need CONFIRMATION that a record exists and not simply the statement of denial of access. That may mean that there is a document in the file. It may mean a completely different file. It may mean that the person answering the question does not understand the law. It may mean that you do not understand the law.

You have no confirmation. You simply have a statement of denial, which you say means there is a record, but might not be for plenty of reasons. There is no confirmation. No one will believe you. They will, however, believe the simple statement of the officials that the original document in the files says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly that the original birth document says that Obama was born in Hawaii. You say that they are lying because of your interpretation of the UIPA law and perhaps because you consider that it is impossible that they made a mistake about the law. But it is far more likely that you misinterpreted the law, or they did, or that they made a mistake in answering “denied” than that they lied twice about Obama’s original birth certificate saying that he was born in Hawaii.

Re: “has effectively confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (for which no supplementary evidence was offered to complete the registration).”

Once again, this is your interpretation for which there is no confirmation. You could be wrong on the law, or they could, or there could simply be a mistake in answering “denied.” In any case, it does not overcome the fact that the officials have said twice that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, and by the way that means at least three people because that is also what the original clerk said when she or he filled out the COLB, and there is the witness who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii in 1961. And, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

Re: “A COLB is not an official birth certificate…”

The DoH of Hawaii says quite clearly that not only is the COLB an official birth certificate, it is the official birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. “The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.” (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html) And, the Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

Re: “Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database…”

So sue them. You claim that it is in violation of the law. They undoubtedly claim that it is not in violation. You will not know for sure unless you win your suit.

Re: “its only rational motive is to control information about a field within the Hawaii DoH COLB database that would flag Obama’s dataset as “void”.

This is simply your interpretation of its motive. DoH may simply have a different view on the law. It is also only you that thinks that DoH is concerned about Obama. Its motive may simply be that it does not think it has to disclose this information about the database related to anyone’s file.

Re: “ii Obama was charged fees to amend his filing – on the authority of Hawaii OIP confirmed by Hawaii DoH”

Again on the basis of a “denied” reply.

Re: “Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.”

Again, you say this but absolutely no one else does and there is no confirmation. Moreover, you have not shown whether the fee structure in 1961 was the same as now. For example, they might have charged fees for everything in 1961 regardless of who made the error or the change. As to what is major or minor. Say that the family did not include the middle name at the time of birth and then wanted to add the middle name, is this major or minor? Whatever, it is a possible explanation.

Re: ‘No amendment summary is depicted in any online image of Obama’s alleged COLB – on the authority of readers’ own eyes.”

Or, far more likely, the law may simply be that the amendment summary applies to the document in the files and does NOT apply to the COLB.

Re: “A COLB is not proof – a COLB claims the presumption of being evidence. ”

You did not complete the sentence. I said that it was accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. In a court anything can be challenged, but this is proof to responsible government agencies, just as a US passport is proof of being a US citizen when checked by the US or foreign governments on arrival at an airport.

Re: “the probity of Obama’s alleged COLB must be investigated and resolved by the judicial or administrative officials to whom it is submitted (not DoH!), which Obama has contrived to avoid on every occasion.”

There has never been a lawsuit against Obama just for the birth certificate. By far most of the lawsuits were to stop the election or stop the Electoral College or stop the Inauguration. The rest include a grab-bag of demands and claims. The courts have ruled that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue, no more than the plaintiffs who sued McCain (that case was thrown out for the same reason). Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the one that Hawaii sent him, the one that it sends to everyone, and he probably thinks that this is sufficient. I certainly do.

Re: “in the case of Chester Arthur, all previous Presidents were born in America to US citizen parents (plural) resident here. ”

You know of course that neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. He was born here, but there may not have been proof. The father of Spiro Agnew, vice president under Nixon, was not a US citizen. (http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html). Barry Goldwater, candidate of the Republican Party in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state. George Romney, Mitt’s father, ran for president even though he had been born in Mexico.

Did you know that Senator Elect Scott Brown did not prove that he was a citizen? To be sure, he did not have to prove that he was a natural born citizen, only a citizen. But he never proved it. He never posted anything or showed his birth certificate to anyone.

In contrast, Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration).

More directly to the New Orleans point. My point is that if ALL records were lost, then the candidate would still be eligible unless there was proof that he was born outside of the USA. Why? Because it is not the rule to demand proof. Scott Brown is eligible to be Senator even though he has not proven that he is a citizen. Only if someone could prove that he was not a citizen would he fail the eligibility test.

Re: “citzenship cases she (he?) would be aware that showing an individual has no claim to legal status in the US is sufficient.”

However, in this case Obama has shown using the official birth certificate of Hawaii, that he has legal status in the USA, and you say that that is sufficient. Only if you can prove that he was NOT born in the USA can you take that away.

Re: “it is disingenuous…when the strategy of Obama’s attorneys and loyalists is to deny access to the evidence that would resolve the suspicion. ”

It is disingenuous of YOU to imply that there was ever a lawsuit just for the birth certificate or just for documents. Most of the lawsuits were to stop something from happening, such as the Election or the Inauguration. Most of these lawsuits, and I looked at virtually all of them, did not even ask that Obama show his birth certificate to a court. So it is very disingenuous to say that Obama is denying access. Moreover, it is HAWAII that is denying access. Obama can only show what Hawaii sent him, and that was the COLB.

Re: “Amended but no summary of reasons printed on Obama’s alleged COLB.”

As discussed, (1) Only you, based on your interpretation, say that it was amended; (2) the summary of reasons does not necessarily have to appear on the COLB, it may only have to appear on the original document.

Re: “delayed”

Only you say that it was delayed. No confirmation.

Re: “no seals in online images of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

The seal is on the back, and it is clearly visible in the copy that FactCheck has online (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) See the third photo from the top, the one with the words “the raised seal” under it.

Re: “the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federa Rules of Evidence.”

So you say. No one else does.

Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

Yes they have. They have stated that the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.

Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has stated that Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted in online scans and photographs posted online was issued by their department. ”

If they say twice that the COLB is accurate in showing Obama’s birth in Hawaii this is unnecessary. Moreover, it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not. This being the case, the critical fact is whether Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials have said twice that he was.

Re: “or she (through Okubo) was previously lying when she repeatedly claimed (and has since) that on the advice of the Hawaii Attorney General such a statement was illegal. ”

And, as you know, she has not been prosecuted. I am shocked, shocked, that a Republican governor’s administration should be so corrupt. Actually, all we know is that at one time she thought it was illegal and subsequently she thought it was not illegal. Or, maybe it was illegal at the first statement but that things changed in the second (such as perhaps Obama gave permission to make the statement, perhaps). In any case, the fact that it may have been illegal does not make the statements lies.

Re: “a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” (Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2)).”

This is interesting, but guess what it refers to? To the official birth certificate of Hawaii, of course, meaning the COLB. So, maybe you can get a non-certified copy of the COLB. If you think that this refers to the original birth certificate, sue, but you could be wrong.

Re: “if the triple hearsay reminiscences 48 years later of a witness which does not include the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is put forward as credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

The recollections simply confirm the official birth certificate and the statements of the two officials. To be sure, 48 years have passed. To be sure, she said that she was told. But this confirms the statements of the two officials. And, there is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

Re: “None needed. See above.”

You are wrong. Since there is an official document proving birth in Hawaii and the confirmation of two officials that he was born in Hawaii, only proof that he was not born in Hawaii can in any way affect the overwhelming proof that he was born in Hawaii.

Re: “Duh, maybe to say the COLB was genuine.”

They have said that the facts on the COLB are accurate.

Re: ‘(amendment summary not illegally omitted)”

You have not shown that amendment summaries must be attached to COLBs. They may only have to be attached to the original, the one that was changed.

Re: “and issued by them (genuine seal as applied by DoH clerks)…?”

They have said that the facts on the COLB were accurate. The seal appears in the FactCheck photo. As for it being accurate, all that we can see is the image of the seal that is online. The DoH cannot say that it is real or not from the image.

Further proof of Obama’s citizenship also stems from the fact that Obama received a US passport to travel to Indonesia as a child with his mother and to return from Indonesia when he attended High School. To be sure, passports are issued to naturalized citizens as well as natural born citizens, but if this had been the case, then surely someone would have found the naturalization documents in the State Department files. The birth certificate used to obtain the passport was probably a copy of the original, and it probably still is in the State Department files.

Re: “officials who have either been acting illegally or lying.”

There is absolutely no evidence that the officials in Hawaii were lying, and it is highly unlikely because there is little for them to gain by lying and a lot to lose if they were found out. As you have said, sometimes people do lie even despite this risk, but in this case we have no motive for them to lie. Perhaps the whole Republican Administration in Hawaii is behind these lies. Maybe the officials and the governor and the legislature and the newspapers and the US State Department are all lying.

Obama has posted the offical birth certificate of Hawaii, and this document is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military, and the facts on the birth certificate (the COLB) have been twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. And there is no confirmation of an amendment or delay to the birth certificate, only interpretation and speculation.

I am retired, so I have plenty of time. No one pays me. In fact, I was a contributor.

Re: “However, the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, which supervises and enforces Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Act (UIPA), has officially acknowledged, in relation to UIPA requests to DoH for records it holds on Obama, that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.”

First, only you say this. There is no confirmation that it is true. Second, as WAYK has asserted repeatedly, the officials in Hawaii have broken the law on something, such as telling the truth. Why not on this? In other words, they could be saying “denied” when there is absolutely nothing, and this could be either (1) illegal, or (2) simply a mistake.

Elsewhere there is a birther who claims that Obama’s real name must
be “Steve Dunham” because of the same thing, a “denied” reply. Yet there is a simple answer for this, there is a file somewhere in the Hawaii birth records for a “Steve Dunham,” but it is not necessarily Obama. It simply is another guy. It is absolutely clear that the request was only for a record of “Steve Dunham” within the Obama file? No. If not, could the Hawaii officials interpret the question to mean any Steve Dunhams ever born in Hawaii? Yes.

This being the case in the Dunham example and in your case, you need CONFIRMATION that a record exists and not simply the statement of denial of access. That may mean that there is a document in the file. It may mean a completely different file. It may mean that the person answering the question does not understand the law. It may mean that you do not understand the law.

You have no confirmation. You simply have a statement of denial, which you say means there is a record, but might not be for plenty of reasons. There is no confirmation. No one will believe you. They will, however, believe the simple statement of the officials that the original document in the files says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly that the original birth document says that Obama was born in Hawaii. You say that they are lying because of your interpretation of the UIPA law and perhaps because you consider that it is impossible that they made a mistake about the law. But it is far more likely that you misinterpreted the law, or they did, or that they made a mistake in answering “denied” than that they lied twice about Obama’s original birth certificate saying that he was born in Hawaii.

Re: “has effectively confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (for which no supplementary evidence was offered to complete the registration).”

Once again, this is your interpretation for which there is no confirmation. You could be wrong on the law, or they could, or there could simply be a mistake in answering “denied.” In any case, it does not overcome the fact that the officials have said twice that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, and by the way that means at least three people because that is also what the original clerk said when she or he filled out the COLB, and there is the witness who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii in 1961. And, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

Re: “A COLB is not an official birth certificate…”

The DoH of Hawaii says quite clearly that not only is the COLB an official birth certificate, it is the official birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. “The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.” (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html) And, the Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

Re: “Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database…”

So sue them. You claim that it is in violation of the law. They undoubtedly claim that it is not in violation. You will not know for sure unless you win your suit.

Re: “its only rational motive is to control information about a field within the Hawaii DoH COLB database that would flag Obama’s dataset as “void”.

This is simply your interpretation of its motive. DoH may simply have a different view on the law. It is also only you that thinks that DoH is concerned about Obama. Its motive may simply be that it does not think it has to disclose this information about the database related to anyone’s file.

Re: “ii Obama was charged fees to amend his filing – on the authority of Hawaii OIP confirmed by Hawaii DoH”

Again on the basis of a “denied” reply.

Re: “Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.”

Again, you say this but absolutely no one else does and there is no confirmation. Moreover, you have not shown whether the fee structure in 1961 was the same as now. For example, they might have charged fees for everything in 1961 regardless of who made the error or the change. As to what is major or minor. Say that the family did not include the middle name at the time of birth and then wanted to add the middle name, is this major or minor? Whatever, it is a possible explanation.

Re: ‘No amendment summary is depicted in any online image of Obama’s alleged COLB – on the authority of readers’ own eyes.”

Or, far more likely, the law may simply be that the amendment summary applies to the document in the files and does NOT apply to the COLB.

Re: “A COLB is not proof – a COLB claims the presumption of being evidence. ”

You did not complete the sentence. I said that it was accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. In a court anything can be challenged, but this is proof to responsible government agencies, just as a US passport is proof of being a US citizen when checked by the US or foreign governments on arrival at an airport.

Re: “the probity of Obama’s alleged COLB must be investigated and resolved by the judicial or administrative officials to whom it is submitted (not DoH!), which Obama has contrived to avoid on every occasion.”

There has never been a lawsuit against Obama just for the birth certificate. By far most of the lawsuits were to stop the election or stop the Electoral College or stop the Inauguration. The rest include a grab-bag of demands and claims. The courts have ruled that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue, no more than the plaintiffs who sued McCain (that case was thrown out for the same reason). Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the one that Hawaii sent him, the one that it sends to everyone, and he probably thinks that this is sufficient. I certainly do.

Re: “in the case of Chester Arthur, all previous Presidents were born in America to US citizen parents (plural) resident here. ”

You know of course that neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. He was born here, but there may not have been proof. The father of Spiro Agnew, vice president under Nixon, was not a US citizen. (http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html). Barry Goldwater, candidate of the Republican Party in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state. George Romney, Mitt’s father, ran for president even though he had been born in Mexico.

Did you know that Senator Elect Scott Brown did not prove that he was a citizen? To be sure, he did not have to prove that he was a natural born citizen, only a citizen. But he never proved it. He never posted anything or showed his birth certificate to anyone.

In contrast, Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration).

More directly to the New Orleans point. My point is that if ALL records were lost, then the candidate would still be eligible unless there was proof that he was born outside of the USA. Why? Because it is not the rule to demand proof. Scott Brown is eligible to be Senator even though he has not proven that he is a citizen. Only if someone could prove that he was not a citizen would he fail the eligibility test.

Re: “citzenship cases she (he?) would be aware that showing an individual has no claim to legal status in the US is sufficient.”

However, in this case Obama has shown using the official birth certificate of Hawaii, that he has legal status in the USA, and you say that that is sufficient. Only if you can prove that he was NOT born in the USA can you take that away.

Re: “it is disingenuous…when the strategy of Obama’s attorneys and loyalists is to deny access to the evidence that would resolve the suspicion. ”

It is disingenuous of YOU to imply that there was ever a lawsuit just for the birth certificate or just for documents. Most of the lawsuits were to stop something from happening, such as the Election or the Inauguration. Most of these lawsuits, and I looked at virtually all of them, did not even ask that Obama show his birth certificate to a court. So it is very disingenuous to say that Obama is denying access. Moreover, it is HAWAII that is denying access. Obama can only show what Hawaii sent him, and that was the COLB.

Re: “Amended but no summary of reasons printed on Obama’s alleged COLB.”

As discussed, (1) Only you, based on your interpretation, say that it was amended; (2) the summary of reasons does not necessarily have to appear on the COLB, it may only have to appear on the original document.

Re: “delayed”

Only you say that it was delayed. No confirmation.

Re: “no seals in online images of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

The seal is on the back, and it is clearly visible in the copy that FactCheck has online (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) See the third photo from the top, the one with the words “the raised seal” under it.

Re: “the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federa Rules of Evidence.”

So you say. No one else does.

Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

Yes they have. They have stated that the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.

Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has stated that Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted in online scans and photographs posted online was issued by their department. ”

If they say twice that the COLB is accurate in showing Obama’s birth in Hawaii this is unnecessary. Moreover, it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not. This being the case, the critical fact is whether Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials have said twice that he was.

Re: “or she (through Okubo) was previously lying when she repeatedly claimed (and has since) that on the advice of the Hawaii Attorney General such a statement was illegal. ”

And, as you know, she has not been prosecuted. I am shocked, shocked, that a Republican governor’s administration should be so corrupt. Actually, all we know is that at one time she thought it was illegal and subsequently she thought it was not illegal. Or, maybe it was illegal at the first statement but that things changed in the second (such as perhaps Obama gave permission to make the statement, perhaps). In any case, the fact that it may have been illegal does not make the statements lies.

Re: “a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” (Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2)).”

This is interesting, but guess what it refers to? To the official birth certificate of Hawaii, of course, meaning the COLB. So, maybe you can get a non-certified copy of the COLB. If you think that this refers to the original birth certificate, sue, but you could be wrong.

Re: “if the triple hearsay reminiscences 48 years later of a witness which does not include the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is put forward as credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

The recollections simply confirm the official birth certificate and the statements of the two officials. To be sure, 48 years have passed. To be sure, she said that she was told. But this confirms the statements of the two officials. And, there is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

Re: “None needed. See above.”

You are wrong. Since there is an official document proving birth in Hawaii and the confirmation of two officials that he was born in Hawaii, only proof that he was not born in Hawaii can in any way affect the overwhelming proof that he was born in Hawaii.

Re: “Duh, maybe to say the COLB was genuine.”

They have said that the facts on the COLB are accurate.

Re: ‘(amendment summary not illegally omitted)”

You have not shown that amendment summaries must be attached to COLBs. They may only have to be attached to the original, the one that was changed.

Re: “and issued by them (genuine seal as applied by DoH clerks)…?”

They have said that the facts on the COLB were accurate. The seal appears in the FactCheck photo. As for it being accurate, all that we can see is the image of the seal that is online. The DoH cannot say that it is real or not from the image.

Further proof of Obama’s citizenship also stems from the fact that Obama received a US passport to travel to Indonesia as a child with his mother and to return from Indonesia when he attended High School. To be sure, passports are issued to naturalized citizens as well as natural born citizens, but if this had been the case, then surely someone would have found the naturalization documents in the State Department files. The birth certificate used to obtain the passport was probably a copy of the original, and it probably still is in the State Department files.

Re: “officials who have either been acting illegally or lying.”

There is absolutely no evidence that the officials in Hawaii were lying, and it is highly unlikely because there is little for them to gain by lying and a lot to lose if they were found out. As you have said, sometimes people do lie even despite this risk, but in this case we have no motive for them to lie. Perhaps the whole Republican Administration in Hawaii is behind these lies. Maybe the officials and the governor and the legislature and the newspapers and the US State Department are all lying.

Obama has posted the offical birth certificate of Hawaii, and this document is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military, and the facts on the birth certificate (the COLB) have been twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. And there is no confirmation of an amendment or delay to the birth certificate, only interpretation and speculation.

To be exact here: replying to UIPA inquiries, Hawaii DoH has denied access to Obama’s delayed (now called “late”) filing (so confirming its existence), and has separately confirmed it holds no supporting evidence “attesting to the facts of birth” for that delayed (late) filing, (which was legally required to complete it under Hawaii Revised Laws 1957 §57-18).

See http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-administration-anonymously.html for details about smrstrauss. In fact, the RSOL referenced this article just this morning.

“When they [DoH] say in words that can be quoted: “It was a delayed…” or “It was amended,” then you can say that it was confirmed…” ann

ann is cunningly asking for something which defies prior history (i.e. the impossible) when she (he?) asks for Hawaii DoH to state explicitly “It was a delayed…” or “It was amended…”

However, the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, which supervises and enforces Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Act (UIPA), has officially acknowledged, in relation to UIPA requests to DoH for records it holds on Obama, that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.

Given DoH has denied access to records concerning fees paid to amend Obama’s vital records, records which concern Obama’s amended birthdate, and records which concern Obama’s delayed birth filing and supporting documents, has effectively confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (for which no supplementary evidence was offered to complete the registration) and an amended birthdate (for which Obama paid fees). The authority for these statements is the authority of the Hawaii Office of Information Practices and Hawaii DoH (by denying access).

“…as his official birth certificate shows…” ann

A COLB is not an official birth certificate: it is a Certification that a dataset exists in the Hawaii DoH COLB database which draws its information from a subset of data extracted from an earlier paper filing of some type. The Hawaii DoH COLB database (in line with national standards) should contain a field which can flag a dataset as “void”. Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database, including any documentation which specifically addresses the use of the “void” field in the Hawaii COLB database. Given this cover-up is a violation of Hawaii law, its only rational motive is to control information about a field within the Hawaii DoH COLB database that would flag Obama’s dataset as “void”.

“[Obama's COLB] is a legal document of a US State…” ann

i No fees are charged to amend a vital record when the family are not responsible for the error or omission or when the amendment is minor (typos, spellings etc.) – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.11.
ii Obama was charged fees to amend his filing – on the authority of Hawaii OIP confirmed by Hawaii DoH.
iii Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.
iv A summary of reasons for an amendment must be endorsed on a birth certificate e.g. http://tinyurl.com/COLB-Amended – on the authority of HRS §338-16.
v No amendment summary is depicted in any online image of Obama’s alleged COLB – on the authority of readers’ own eyes.
Conclusion Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted online is either unofficial or illegal – on the authority of readers’ own rational faculties.

“[Obama's COLB] is accepted as proof of birth…” ann

A COLB is not proof – a COLB claims the presumption of being evidence. The trier of fact in court decides what is proof. Given the fact that Obama has amended his filing with Hawaii DoH, his COLB (if it exists) has no claim to the presumption of evidence and on the authority of HRS §338-17 the probity of Obama’s alleged COLB must be investigated and resolved by the judicial or administrative officials to whom it is submitted (not DoH!), which Obama has contrived to avoid on every occasion.

“Hundreds of thousands of birth certificate records were lost in the floods in New Orleans. Would all those people not be eligible? Were the presidents before states issued birth certificates not eligible?” ann

i In New Orleans, on the basis of corroborating affidavits and other records, the Bureau of Vital Statistics will issue emerging Presidential candidates birth certificates as the need arises.
ii In the period before official birth certificates were issued perhaps parish baptismal registers or family bibles or personal witnesses etc. would have sufficed if the issue had ever arisen but, except in the case of Chester Arthur, all previous Presidents were born in America to US citizen parents (plural) resident here. If ann really wants to make an issue of the problem of how previous Presidents might have proved they were natural born in the period before state vital records existed then she (he?) is making a very good case on behalf of those (“dualers”) who say that natural born citizenship can only be definitively established through a Presidential candidate’s birth in the US to two citizen parents. Her (his?) choice.

“…to prove that a president was not born in the USA, you need both proof that the birth certificate is wrong (not merely suspicion) and proof that the person was born in some other country…” ann

The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. If ann were familiar with immigration and citzenship cases she (he?) would be aware that showing an individual has no claim to legal status in the US is sufficient. The US is not obliged to establish the true background of such individuals to win the case. Furthermore, it is disingenuous of ann to say that suspicion about Obama’s vital records is not enough when the strategy of Obama’s attorneys and loyalists is to deny access to the evidence that would resolve the suspicion. Suspicion is not enough when the evidence is freely and fairly available which would conclusively allay suspicion: until then suspicion makes its case on the basis of facts which apparently have only one interpretation.

“The birth certificate is credible…” ann

Credible? Amended but no summary of reasons printed on Obama’s alleged COLB; delayed but no supplementary evidence to complete the registration; no seals in online images of Obama’s alleged COLB or seals demonstrably incompatible with genuine seals; due to amendment the COLB is not evidence under HRS 338-17; the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federa Rules of Evidence; the alleged COLB not properly authenticated under FRE Rule 902(4) for admission into evidence; the alleged COLB states it has only been “FILED”, not “ACCEPTED”… Indeed, a COLB in Certification of a birth that occurred in 1961 is not a birth certificate…. The only way credibility can be assumed in the teeth of these remorseless facts is to block out reality altogether and pretend none of it is really happening.

“…the officials certifying the accuracy of the birth certificate are credible…” ann

No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB. No Hawaii DoH official has stated that Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted in online scans and photographs posted online was issued by their department. As described below, Director Fukino’s July 2009 statement (which did not reference Obama’s alleged COLB) was either illegal or she (through Okubo) was previously lying when she repeatedly claimed (and has since) that on the advice of the Hawaii Attorney General such a statement was illegal. Statements issued by DoH officials who are either acting illegally or lying have no credibility.

Indeed, it was only in November 2009 that Hawaii DoH complied with the law that required DoH to make public its Vital Records Regulations which revealed (among other things) that a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” (Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2)).

Hawaii DoH officials credible? The truth is that ann herself (himself?) must address these inconvenient facts, which demonstrate that Hawaii DoH officials have no credibility, with reasonable arguments rather than chanting slogans if readers at this blog are to be expected to give her (his?) comments any credibility.

“…the witness who recalls being told of the birth in 1961 is credible…” ann

ann is obviously not thinking logically if the triple hearsay reminiscences 48 years later of a witness which does not include the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is put forward as credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

“no documentary or other proof that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii…” ann

None needed. See above.

“Why should [Hawaii DoH acknowledge Obama’s alleged COLB]? They have said that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Birth in Hawaii is the key fact, the only fact that counts….” ann

Why? Seriously? Why? Why should Hawaii DoH have ever acknowledged Obama’s alleged COLB? Duh, maybe to say the COLB was genuine (amendment summary not illegally omitted) and issued by them (genuine seal as applied by DoH clerks)…?

Unfortunately, by now any acknowledgement from DoH officials of Obama’s alleged COLB is going to be made by officials who have either been acting illegally or lying and such acknowledgement is going to have no credibility. Honesty and transparency would have been the best policy if Obama had genuinely thought he (and his vital records) could have been believed.

Baloney! When they say in words that can be quoted: “It was a delayed…” or “It was amended,” then you can say that it was confirmed. Until then, it is merely your speculation that because they said X when they should have said Y this means something.

Why should they? They have said that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Birth in Hawaii is the key fact, the only fact that counts.

He was legally registered as born in the USA, as his official birth certificate shows. That is legal. It is a legal document of a US State, and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. The officials in Hawaii have twice stated that the facts in the file confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.

In addition, there is no proof or even credible reports that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

As for it being legally required to have a registration of birth in the USA, I wonder. Hundreds of thousands of birth certificate records were lost in the floods in New Orleans. Would all those people not be eligible? Were the presidents before states issued birth certificates not eligible?

In short, to prove that a president was not born in the USA, you need both proof that the birth certificate is wrong (not merely suspicion) and proof that the person was born in some other country than the USA. Neither actually exist. The birth certificate is credible, the officials certifying the accuracy of the birth certificate are credible, the witness who recalls being told of the birth in 1961 is credible. And there is no documentary or other proof that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

If Obama was not legally registered as born in the USA and cannot supply proof of his birth in the USA, then he is not not a natural born US citizen and therefore ineligible to the Presidency. The US Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen: not “may be” or “could be” or “might be” or “ought to be” or “virtually be” but “shall be” which means “must be”. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law.

“In the Obama case we have only the fanciful and highly unlikely allegation that he was born in Kenya.” ann

There are at least three other scenarios which explain why Obama’s family did not supply the evidence to legally register his birth as having occurred in Hawaii: all imply his birth out of state. Concentrating on Kenya is the logical fallacy of the false dilemma and, in the context of this discussion, not decisive.

“…an official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which have repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.” ann

Has ann even read my other comments in this discussion? Officials at Hawaii DoH refuse every opportunity to acknowledge Obama’s alleged COLB as having been issued by them, and reiterate at every opportunity their line that it is illegal for them to confirm any fact within a vital record – which means that when Fukino at DoH issued a statement in July about Obama’s vital records she was either acting illegally or was previously lying. Consequently, what other illegalities or lies have Fukino and Hawaii DoH perpetrated in defense of Obama’s vital records?

“To lie about something like this should be considered a crime of some kind. They could be prosecuted; at the very least they could lose their jobs. So it is…unlikely…” ann

On the basis of this “logic” no one lies if the penalties of being exposed are severe. Since, for example, neither Clinton nor Nixon were deterred from lying, it would seem that ann’s illogic doesn’t go very far.

“…said that the original document verifies the facts on the certification of live birth that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.” ann

Apparently ann did not read this part of my earlier comment: “a delayed or amended vital record is not to be presumed true: according to law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17) its probity must be investigated by the court, body, or official to whom it is submitted as evidence and Obama’s vital records cannot simply be “declared” prima facie by Fukino.” Given Fukino has been either acting illegally or lying to protect Obama’s vital records, her disregard for HRS 338-17 is entirely predictable.

“There is also the evidence of the witness…This has the ring of truth about it. Sure, there may be a former marine who claims that Obama told him that he was born in Kenya….But it is not credible….No one confirms it.” ann

No one confirms Barbara Nelson’s alleged hearsay either and she too may have her reasons…. Unfortunately ann seems to be unaware that unless hearsay satisifes one of the exceptions outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence then it is entirely without value as evidence, and Nelson’s hearsay meets no such criterion. Moreover, nowhere in Nelson’s tale does she say that the unknown person who told the now-deceased person who told Nelson in 1961 about Obama’s birth mentioned to her that Obama was born in Hawaii: without that information Nelson’s tale and ann’s citation of it is irrelevant.

“For (3) to be true, Obama would be telling the marine that his relatives broke the law in Hawaii and got away with it.” ann

Obama has admitted to protracted use of several mind-altering narcotics at the time of his alleged meeting with Race Bannon. Given Obama has never been prosecuted for these drug-related activities, he did indeed break the law, got away with it, and then banked millions of dollars from the book which told us how he did it.

“[Who Are You Kidding] continues to make much of his allegation, based only on his logic and his interpretation of the Hawaii statutes, that there was either or both a delayed birth certificate or an amendment to the birth certificate…” ann

The fact that Obama’s vital records involve an amendment, and a delayed filing for which no corroborating evidence was supplied, is neither an allegation nor solely based on logic or statutory interpretation: it has been confirmed by DoH through UIPA directly to multiple requesters. If ann is reluctant to accept these confirmations she is invited to prove the multiple requesters wrong by making her own UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH and bringing any dis-confirmations to the discussion. So far no Obama loyalist who disputes the confirmations has reported UIPA responses from DoH to the contrary.

“…it is highly likely that the notices in the newspapers were generated by the government, as all the reports say. This is confirmed by all the notices having exactly the same format.” ann

No authority has been cited by ann for the claim that the newspaper announcements were in every instance “generated by the government“, merely a reference to “all reports.” As far as I am aware there have been only two such “reports”, and neither source worked in either newspaper until years after 1961. Furthermore, one of the sources ann presumably relies on said that classified advertising was shared between both newspapers and therefore always had the same format in both. Until ann cites an authority with contemporary knowledge of procedures in 1961, all her statements about the newspaper announcements are mere conjecture.

“As for an amendment to the certificate, I have shown that most amendments tend to be spelling mistakes or the omission of a middle name.” ann

The minor amendment of spelling mistakes etc. are not subject to the charging of fees, but Hawaii DoH has confirmed through UIPA that Obama was charged a fee to amend his vital records. Consequently the amendment was a major administrative change and by law must be summarized on any birth certificate issued by Hawaii DoH. This means that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is not probative evidence under HRS 338-17 until so determined by an authority other than Hawaii DoH and, judging from online scans and images of Obama’s alleged COLB and considering the anomalies within them, those versions must be illegal and forgeries.

Until ann can extract from DoH through UIPA a dis-confirmation that Obama paid a fee to amend his vital records then the amendment was indeed a major administrative change with the consequences as described.

“Obama was elected…” ann

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law and cannot be amended by a Presidential election.

In the Obama case we have only the fanciful and highly unlikely allegation that he was born in Kenya. There is no proof of this, and there would almost certainly be proof if it occurred. The reason, of course, is that if a child is born in Kenya, she or he needs a US travel document to get to the USA (such as a US visa on a foreign passport or the change to his mother’s passport to include her while in Kenya). Such documents have to be applied for, and the files of the applications are saved, and if they existed, they would have been found. So the born-in-Kenya theory is virtually impossible. It is also highly unlikely since the trip to Kenya was expensive in those days, and it required a Yellow Fever shot, which is bad during pregnancy.

So, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than the USA, and it is highly unlikely.

On the other side of the question, there is an official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which have repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

Who Are You Kidding (WAYK) is willing to challenge the motives of these officials, but I continue to believe that they have no motive for lying. Also, I point out, that if they did lie, and it were found out (which birthers believe is inevitable) then the downside for them would be severe. To lie about something like this should be considered a crime of some kind. They could be prosecuted; at the very least they could lose their jobs. So it is (1) unlikely; (2) extremely unlikely that they lied when they said that the original document verifies the facts on the certification of live birth that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

There is also the evidence of the witness. WAYK claims that this is merely heresay. But for it to be false, the woman would have to lie about her father’s name being Stanley. She says that she heard about the birth to a woman named Stanley, which she found interesting enough to write home to her father, named Stanley, about. This has the ring of truth about it. Sure, there may be a former marine who claims that Obama told him that he was born in Kenya. This also is heresay. But it is not credible.

No one confirms it, and no one can give a motive why Obama would tell this marine that he was born in Kenya, when (1) Obama has not told anyone else that; (2) it would not be to Obama’s benefit to say that; and (3) Obama himself would not know that he was born in Kenya unless he was told it by a relative, but his relative would then have to explain how Obama was born in Kenya and got to Hawaii without a US travel document and then his relatives had to convince the authorities in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii. For (3) to be true, Obama would be telling the marine that his relatives broke the law in Hawaii and got away with it.

The former marine’s heresay thus smells like a simple lie.

At the very least, the notices in the newspapers confirm the approximate date of Obama’s birth, since they appeared in the newspapers about ten days after that date. Delayed birth certificates require delays of a month or more.

Moreover, it is highly likely that the notices in the newspapers were generated by the government, as all the reports say. This is confirmed by all the notices having exactly the same format. For a notice to be placed by relatives without proof that Obama was actually born is unlikely. As I said, the danger of libel kept virtually all newspapers from accepting birth notices without a birth certificate. If they ran a notice “twins born to Mary Smith,” and Mary Smith was not married, they could easily lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more in a libel suit. Yet WAYK would have us believe that TWO Hawaii newspapers accepted birth notices from Obama’s relatives without any document whatsoever, when other children’s births were being placed in the newspapers automatically by the government.

WAYK continues to make much of his allegation, based only on his logic and his interpretation of the Hawaii statutes, that there was either or both a delayed birth certificate or an amendment to the birth certificate. I have shown that there could not have been a significant delay in the birth certificate, since the notices were posted in the newspapers about ten days after the birth. As for an amendment to the certificate, I have shown that most amendments tend to be spelling mistakes or the omission of a middle name. Such an amendment would not undermine the repeated statements by the officials in Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii.

As for the allegation that the COLB was forged, there is no evidence for this other than the claims of two fellows who will not give their real names.

Obama was elected by 69 million votes to 59 million. He received 365 Electoral votes. The claims about the forgery and the allegations that Obama was born in Kenya or was not a Natural Born citizen were made to these electors. Not one changed her or his vote. The same allegations were made to the members of Congress prior to the confirmation. Not one voted against Obama.

smrstrauss’s illogical theories about Obama’s vital records cannot be taken seriously because a serious theory has explanatory power and is susceptible to falsification. smrstrauss’s theories are designed to deny access to the information that would falsify his theory and they cannot explain key facts in the case: for example, the missing amendment and notice of a delayed filing in images of Obama’s alleged COLB; the inconsistencies detectable in images of Obama’s alleged COLB and his alleged Selective Service Registration; the Selective Service Registration being connected to a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut in the 1930s; and the fact that Hawaii officials have acted illegally or lied, and remain in defiance of Hawaii law, to protect Obama’s vital records.

It is because it is so easy for misleading impressions to be received when the information available to the public is reduced (e.g. the illusionist’s rooster) that Hawaii enacted legislation (UIPA) to prevent authorities from casting misleading impressions. If we are to believe smrstrauss such misleading impressions cannot happen and the legislation, or obedience to it, is unnecessary: which might be true, however remotely, if smrstrauss’s theories could explain the inconvenient facts given above – but they can’t.

“A legal document exists, the certification of live birth, that shows he was born in Hawaii. The original vital records verify his birth…What has to verify the original records?” smrstrauss

Vital records may be verified, for example, by the signatures of the witnesses duly included (doctor, mother etc.) or by affidavits or other evidence supplied to verify the birth. Given Hawaii DoH confirm that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing this means he was not born in a hospital and his certificate lacks a hospital doctor’s signature. Consequently, affidavits or other evidence would have been required, but DoH have confirmed in response to UIPA requests that no supplementary evidence was submitted to verify Obama’s birth in Hawaii; therefore Obama was never legally registered as born in Hawaii.

“Absent proof that he was born anywhere else, this is more than sufficient.” smrstrauss

There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The purported online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are insufficient to prove the circumstances of Obama’s birth in court because a) such online images are not admissible as evidence; b) judging by these online images Obama’s alleged COLB has not been authenticated for use in court by DoH in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence 902(4); c) Obama’s alleged COLB is not best evidence and not complete, as would be required in court by FRE Rules 106 and 1002; d) the summary of reasons for Obama’s amended date of birth has been illegally removed from Obama’s alleged COLB or it not does not reproduce a certified copy of his vital records; and e) as I wrote in November, a delayed or amended vital record is not to be presumed true: according to law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17) its probity must be investigated by the court, body, or official to whom it is submitted as evidence and Obama’s vital records cannot simply be “declared” prima facie by Fukino.

Furthermore, the statement from DoH in July 2009 regarding Obama’s vital records was made by an official (Fukino) who was acting illegally in making that statement, or who had previously lied (usually through Okubo) with repeated claims that to make such a statement was illegal, and who is still defying Hawaii law (UIPA) by refusing to make administrative documents public which would permit an examination of her department’s conduct in relation to Obama’s vital records.

“…the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961…this is heresay [sic], but it is convincing in that she wrote about being told of Obama’s birth…” smrstrauss

And Race Bannon, former U.S. Marine, also has a story of being told by Obama in August 1980 that he (Obama) was born in Mombasa, Kenya: yes, this is hearsay, but “it is convincing in that [he] wrote about being told” and we just gotta believe him because “absent proof that Obama was born anywhere else but” Mombasa, as the Kenyan birth certificate recently posted online establishes….(chuckle).

“…either the relatives went to both newspapers with identical birth notices and proof of Obama’s birth…” smrstrauss

smrstrauss is being disingenuous. In 1961 many newspapers did not require proof of a child’s birth before they accepted an announcement for publication. smrstrauss has cited no authority for his surmises concerning the Hawaii newspapers’ procedures in 1961.

“…officials in Hawaii (who are under a Republican governor) would have screamed bloody murder and claimed that there was a forgery. They didn’t.” smrstrauss

I commend the following excellent article to readers’ attention: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-overlooked/

“Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has either explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement. This includes the Department of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), Lieutenant Governor’s Office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo, the Communications Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, appears to have stated on Dec. 11, 2009 that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate, even if such a certificate is a very public forgery, used as an essential part of a presidential campaign. The Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves. In other words, their philosophy is ‘See no evil…’“