Posted on 05/07/2010 9:01:18 PM PDT by PilotDave
Obama's grandmother was a nurse? I thought she was a bank executive.
That’s a good question. I have asked to see what is printed on a COLB that is amended. The HDOH refuses to show me that.
I think they can keep that statement on even the amended COLB’s which don’t qualify as prima facie evidence because it only says that it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth - that there was a birth, not that the FACTS regarding the birth are reported accurately on the BC.
We know there was a birth. We just don’t know when, where, to whom, etc. Both HRS 338-17 and the DOH Administrative Rules say that if a BC has been amended it has to be noted on any certificate the HDOH prints for that person and that certificate cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts claimed on it.
That’s why Obama posted a forged COLB even though he has a genuine COLB that he could post. He had to get rid of the note of the amendment and (I believe) the 2006 certificate number. That’s also why he refuses to show either the COLB or his original, and why the HDOH refuses to give a non-certified copy of his COLB to anybody who asks for it, as is required by DOH administrative rules and UIPA.
If his amendment was to change something embarrassing he would not need to steal somebody else’s certificate number. He only had to steal somebody else’s certificate number because his own would reveal something he wants hidden - specifically that his BC was not completed until 2006 (which also means that it doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence because late/delayed BC’s are not prima facie evidence either).
Here's what HRS 338-17 says:
§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. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]
First, you're assuming that Obama's birth certificate has been altered. Second, the statement at the bottom of Obama's ColB says that it is prima facie evidence
“The birth certificate is irrelevant. A Constitutional natural born citizen is “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Obama’s father was never a citizen. Obama II states that he was “Born a subject of the British Commonwealth”. No further proof is necessary.”
Excellent and spot on analysis. It’s amazing how few people have gotten to that level of understanding.
People, focus on Article 2 of the constitution. The founders wrote it as a purity test for one job in the world. They simply didn’t want anybody with a split loyalty/dual citizenship to ever be POTUS. They could have film of Obama being born on the carpet in the oval office and he still wouldn’t be elegible for POTUS, as long as Obama Sr really is his father.
That is a supposition, not a fact.
I'm not as up on all the rules as you are, but I thought they couldn't give a copy (certified or not) to any one not on the §338-18(b) list, that they could only release the index data. Which rule requires them to give a noncertified copy?
I believe, given all the information I have, that there was one medical item that was required on the Hawaii BC’s that Madelyn Dunham forgot to bring with her when she reported the birth to the local registrar. The normal way they verified that item was by having the baby examined by a Hawaii doctor, who then completed the BC.
Obama’s BC wasn’t completed until he added that item in 2006. His BC and COLB both have note of that amendment, and if people saw it they would immediately realize there was a serious problem with the claim of a Hawaii birth, since Obama was never seen by a Hawaii doctor in the first 30 days after birth. That’s why he has to hide all this stuff. The best Hawaii has for him is an amended late BC which doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and which actually shows that the claim of a Hawaii birth is very, very unlikely to be true.
Agreed. I don’t normally watch AC. is he always that pissy? Unless I was utterly in love with the guy, I’d have wondered what the heck is his problem.
Wish I had a transcript, I’d love to count the lies and half-truths he spewed in the first minute!
HRS 338-18a only says they can’t disclose anything from a BC that is not ALREADY AUTHORIZED by statute or by the DOH rules. So to find out what they can release, you have to look at the DOH administrative rules, which Fukino illegally hid until November of 2009. Those rules list the 4 types of certificates available and who is eligible to receive them: certified long-form, certified abbreviated (COLB), non-certified long-form, and non-certified COLB. The non-certified abbreviated BC (COLB) is authorized to be released to anybody who asks for it.
You can see that on page 20 at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf , where it talks about eligibility to receive an abbreviated copy. A non-certified copy is available to anybody. The reason the certified copy isn’t available to everybody is obvious: because it could be used for identity fraud. They don’t really care who knows the INFORMATION on the COLB - just who has the copy which could be used for identity theft.
That flies in the face of everything Fukino has been claiming.
When I have asked for non-certified abbreviated copies of any certificates (birth, death, marriage) the HDOH has tried to say that HRS 338-18 says they can’t give me that bercause I’m not eligible, but the only prohibitions in HRS 338-18 are for CERTIFIED copies. The rules expressly allow non-certified abbreviated copies to be given to anybody.
Of course, nobody knew that until November of 2009 because Fukino illegally hid the rules. This whole issue has only broken open since somebody (Lt Gov Aiona?) - after months of pressure from some of us - forced the HDOH to obey the law and post their administrative rules. If Fukino had obeyed the law and had the rules posted during the campaign, this whole mess could never have happened. It was Fukino’s breaking of the law which enabled all of this.
We have the links for the download, we’ve done all the steps to get the computer ready for the download, checked all the security settings to make sure it’s all set, and everything seems to be going right. But the download will never happen.
I also can’t get IE to use add-ons. We’ve tried everything, followed all the instructions. Nothing.
My computer is the only computer in the house that has any of these problems. Of course, I’m the only one who is involved with Obama’s eligibility.
What information would be on a non-certified copy? Would it just be a list of the same information as on a certified copy?
The best Hawaii has for him is an amended late BC which doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and which actually shows that the claim of a Hawaii birth is very, very unlikely to be true.
Just out of curiosity, how does one supply a doctor's examine of a newborn baby for birth certificate purposes 45 years late?
Except the statement at the bottom of his CoLB says that it is prima facie evidence.
The HDOH has admitted - several times and repeatedly - that Obama’s BC is amended.
And the prima facie statement only says that it is prima facie evidence of birth. The very fact that Obama is alive is evidence of birth.
As far as I can tell from the HDOH, they make no distinction in their index record reporting and the prima facie note on the COLB between certificates that mean something legally and those which are mere hearsay. That’s why all Obama and the HDOH will allow is index data. I asked to see the delayed birth index data for Obama. They refused. I asked to see the “pending” birth index for Obama. They refused.
So the only way to know the legal status of the BC’s they have index data for is to see a non-certified abbreviated certificate (COLB) - which the rules say anyone can receive. The legal status of the BC is not supposed to be secret at all.
But of course, the HDOH refuses to follow their rules and send me a non-certified abbreviated copy for Obama so I can see the legal status (which would be only shown by the presence or absence of the note of either alteration or late filing - both of which should be on Obama’s BC, both of which render the BC legally non-conclusive, and both of which are missing from the Factcheck COLB). Mere index data tells us nothing about the evidentiary and/or legal status of what Hawaii has.
COOPER: BO is the authority!
LAKIN: The Constitution is the authority!
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth wasn’t necessarily for at-home births. It was actually intended for older people who were born when Hawaii was a territory or who hadn’t applied for a birth certificate at birth. A COHB was used for those who failed to submit ANY information to the HDOH within the first year after birth. As long as Obama had any information at the DOH’s office within a year of his birth, he would receive a birth certificate, not a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
The COHB option was ended in 1972.
Home births could be filed with the HDOH anytime within 90 days of the birth without any consequences at all, as long as all the required information made it to the HDOH within that time. Lori Starfelt says that the HDOH told her that the normal process was to have the baby examined by a doctor within 30 days of birth and complete the BC. If that wasn’t done, according to the DOH rules, then information added after that time would be considered an amendment, the certificate would be noted as altered, and because the certificate was not completed within the required time, the certificate would also be noted as late.
I believe that is what happened with Obama’s BC. The BC was amended in 2006 to add an item that wasn’t on the BC originally because Obama wasn’t in Hawaii and couldn’t be seen by a Hawaii doctor to have him complete the BC.
Perhaps they can't show it to you because it doesn't exist?
But of course, the HDOH refuses to follow their rules and send me a non-certified abbreviated copy for Obama so I can see the legal status...
Has anyone tried to get a non-certified abbreviated copy of another Hawaiian's birth certificate just to prove that it can be done?
Exactly what were the statements?
The HDOH has said that the COLB is the abbreviated certificate. So whatever is on a COLB would be on an abbreviated copy. The rules state that embarrassing information that is not allowed to be put in newspaper announcements also has to be excluded from abbreviated certificates (illegitimacy, etc)
And because the COLB is a certificate it would have to include note of amendments or late filing. Because it is a certificate it would also have to include the certificate number.
Those are precisely the things the HDOH DOESN’T want anybody to see - but whch the rules consider to be public information.
Before they can use that argument credibly, it has to be proven that the document is a PhotoShop forgery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.