Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff Joe set to release more Obama 'shockers'; TODAY Live Thread
World Net Daily ^ | July 10, 2012 | WND

Posted on 07/17/2012 9:08:06 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

Edited on 07/17/2012 9:17:36 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850851-900 last
To: justiceseeker93
Sorry I may have confused you. That earlier post # 142 was on a different thread, titled "Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent.'"
851 posted on 07/18/2012 7:31:15 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Sorry I may have confused you. That earlier post # 142 was on a different thread, titled "Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent.'"
852 posted on 07/18/2012 7:31:52 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Have you noticed the various comments that appear from time to time on FR about the public, when asked, do not recognize the names Frank Marshall Davis or Jerermiah Wright, for example? The public knows NOTHING. And that’s the way the perps NEED it to be.
Any little light shining on what’s going on has to be appreciated methinks.
(As long as the light-bearers remain hale, hearty and healthy...)
We live in interesting times.


853 posted on 07/18/2012 7:37:15 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
You forgot her uncle Charles T Payne, who was Deputy Director of the University of Chicago Library...he and his wife lived in Hyde Park, and he was at the university at least from 1960 until after zero was a lecturer at the same university...Mrs Payne was on a committee with the wife of David Axelrod. Small world, Chicago is.

Yes, you are right. I did forget about him. He is a sort of weak target on my radar, but now that you have mentioned him he is indeed a possibility. One of the benefits that might have been available for her in going to Chicago is a more easily obtained abortion. She probably could get one in Seattle or Vancouver, but in Chicago it would be a virtual certainty, especially given the connections Frank Davis would have had.

Much of these people's lives do seem to orbit Chicago, one way or the other.

Major problem; there’s no physical evidence of SAD either pregnant, or with the kenyan or in Hawaii before we see images of her with a two or three year-old.

Chasing where SAD may have given birth is a dead end if she was the nanny and not the mother.

Not so much a problem for me. My mother has no evidence that she was pregnant with any of us, other than birth certificates. Neither does any of my three sisters, nor for that matter does my wife. Apparently my family never thought it worthwhile to take photographs of any pregnant family members. As a result, I regard it as unremarkable that there are no pictures of Stanley Ann pregnant. Now we do have BIRTH pictures. (Pictures of us taken shortly after birth.) But we have no pregnancy pictures at all.

The notion that Barack is anyone's child but Stanley Ann's would have to have a great deal of supporting evidence in order for me to take a serious look at it. A lack of pregnancy or infant pictures is not sufficient to generate any suspicion on my part.

854 posted on 07/19/2012 1:42:54 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I want to understand the details in the stig CNN case. Are they on your or another site or threAd?


855 posted on 07/19/2012 2:52:11 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Setting up an ID and a fake birth record for zero after the child of the kenyan student, who was named after him, was taken to Kenya in 1964, would have been childs-play for Frank, who knew all the loopholes.

Couple that with typical white granny being in the bank. However, it's odd that after all these years, they failed to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. That's what I can't get, is if they had the right people in the right places then why wave around silly photoshop documents that a 12 year old could do a better job on. Also, if they were grooming one then there's a high likelihood that something could go wrong such as an accidental death or serious injury, the kid turns out to be a total bozo (uh, yeah, I know), he doesn't want to play the game, he has no charisma, etc. That means, if they were smarter than said 12 year old, then they would have groomed others. So, who are the others and where are they?

856 posted on 07/19/2012 2:55:41 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson
That there are other codes to the left side of the record, over near the curved edge, near what looks like the binding

Except there shouldn't be a binding. The very old books came pre-bound but we're talking way before the usurper's time. The problem with pre-bound books is that you can't end the book at the end of the year so they had to come up with a more workable book. The books were changed to be like loose leaf notebooks. The pages have holes in them so you can slip them into the book as more records come in. When a record is needing to be xeroxed, the clerk opens the metal prongs or posts, takes out the page, copies it flat, and then returns it to the book. Besides, these books are too big, clumbsy and heavy to be flopped upside down and xeroxed and the clerk would risk tearing pages. Also, it would never be a legal document if the curve readability was messed up. I know this because I used to be such a clerk though not in HI but that's how every one of these books I've ever seen in other states is. So, of course, if someone wanted to switch pages, it'd be simple as pie.

857 posted on 07/19/2012 3:17:19 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
I would agree with you on that - the wider the audience the better, generally speaking

One of the Austin, TX tv stations was supposed to have aired it but guess who just happened to be landing in Austin at the exact same time? Yet another in a very long, long string of coinky dinks.

858 posted on 07/19/2012 3:30:53 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Yet another in a very long, long string of coinky dinks.

Can you identify that individual by name?

Your mention of Austin TV stations brings to mind that none other than Lady Bird Johnson owned one of them at a time when there were very few to be had. Wonder how she managed that? Yet another case of crony capitalism!

859 posted on 07/19/2012 3:46:45 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: bgill

I agree that there shouldn’t be a binding, but the image they put out makes it look as if there is one. We’ve seen that curved edge on some other long-form images. It may be from the curvature of the microfilm.

My point is that there are codes over on the left side, too. There were two pages to the records. One was for that personal, medical-type information and the other was for the data that went on certified copies handed to the parents, for example. The codes I’m talking about are codes for information on the regular, certified part of the document. The part given out when they made certified copies. Those codes also belong to the record supposedly belonging to Obama. Read the Daily Pen article to see what he reports.


860 posted on 07/19/2012 3:54:20 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Haven’t seen you for awhile.

I've been pretty busy - hence the screen name "sometime lurker."

Weren’t you one of the ones that said there was no evidence that Obama misled people as to the location of his birth?

I don't believe I ever said that. And I certainly have never posted that 0bama didn't mislead people on any issue. I said the evidence points to him being born in Hawaii, with no good evidence he was born elsewhere.

How do you feel now that his publisher’s biography of him lists Kenya as his place of birth? Care to admit you were wrong about this?

Since his literary agent has said she was in error placing that in the promotional brochure, and since I never commented about his literary agent in the past, I see nothing to correct on my part. As to how I feel, I feel that he and everyone associated with him are sloppy as well as numerous other negative adjectives.

I’m not suggesting Obama was born in Kenya. I find that notion to be completely unsupportable by the evidence,

We agree.

861 posted on 07/19/2012 3:59:28 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson
HIPAA does not cover the records of a deceased person.

Sorry, but you are wrong about that, as the link I posted shows.

The log is only a log of the names of women taken into the delivery room. That’s it, according to what Zullo said. There’s NO REASON not to release this log book to the Cold Case Posse, given that Zullo also said that it was in the hospital library, which is ordinarily open to the public.

If you follow the link I originally gave to the HHS page, you'll see that HIPAA covers “Individually identifiable health information” which is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

It’s already published information, if it relates to 1961. The Health Dept. ALREADY published it in the newspapers because the HOSPITALS already sent the names to the Health Dept., which PUBLISHED THE NAMES in the newspapers.

In 1961 there was no HIPAAA, and this was legal. The hospital cannot now release ANY protected health information, past or present, except in certain very specific circumstances.

HIPAA also does not protect the names of people currently IN the hospital. Otherwise, of what use is the information desk, where one goes to find out the room of someone s/he wants to visit? Have you ever called the hospital to be connected to a patient’s room? Do they not connect you? That gives out the “name” of the person in the hospital.

You are confusing the meaning of the "directory exception." It provides for a directory of CURRENT patients, providing they allow it, and they must be given the chance to opt out.

The patient must be informed about the information to be included in the directory, and to whom the information may be released, and must have the opportunity to restrict the information or to whom it is disclosed, or opt out of being included in the directory.
Since neither 0bama or his mama are CURRENT patients, this is moot.

there’s NO PRIVACY interest in the name of a person who was taken into delivery in 1961. I got the entire medical record, including pathology reports, of an ancestor. The person is deceased. The records were available upon request.

For this legally occur after HIPAA was implemented, you must be the patient's appointed personal representative, executor or next of kin, or have a legitimate medical reason to need this, such as a genetic disease. Otherwise, the hospital who gave you the information is liable for a whopping big fine.

As part of my job, I have to take a course and test on HIPAA compliance periodically. Do the research - patient logs are no longer public information and are HIPAA protected with certain limited exceptions.

862 posted on 07/19/2012 4:29:18 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson
HIPAA does not cover the records of a deceased person.

Sorry, but you are wrong about that, as the link I posted shows.

The log is only a log of the names of women taken into the delivery room. That’s it, according to what Zullo said. There’s NO REASON not to release this log book to the Cold Case Posse, given that Zullo also said that it was in the hospital library, which is ordinarily open to the public.

If you follow the link I originally gave to the HHS page, you'll see that HIPAA covers “Individually identifiable health information” which is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

It’s already published information, if it relates to 1961. The Health Dept. ALREADY published it in the newspapers because the HOSPITALS already sent the names to the Health Dept., which PUBLISHED THE NAMES in the newspapers.

In 1961 there was no HIPAAA, and this was legal. The hospital cannot now release ANY protected health information, past or present, except in certain very specific circumstances.

HIPAA also does not protect the names of people currently IN the hospital. Otherwise, of what use is the information desk, where one goes to find out the room of someone s/he wants to visit? Have you ever called the hospital to be connected to a patient’s room? Do they not connect you? That gives out the “name” of the person in the hospital.

You are confusing the meaning of the "directory exception." It provides for a directory of CURRENT patients, providing they allow it, and they must be given the chance to opt out.

The patient must be informed about the information to be included in the directory, and to whom the information may be released, and must have the opportunity to restrict the information or to whom it is disclosed, or opt out of being included in the directory.
Since neither 0bama or his mama are CURRENT patients, this is moot.

there’s NO PRIVACY interest in the name of a person who was taken into delivery in 1961. I got the entire medical record, including pathology reports, of an ancestor. The person is deceased. The records were available upon request.

For this legally occur after HIPAA was implemented, you must be the patient's appointed personal representative, executor or next of kin, or have a legitimate medical reason to need this, such as a genetic disease. Otherwise, the hospital who gave you the information is liable for a whopping big fine.

As part of my job, I have to take a course and test on HIPAA compliance periodically. Do the research - patient logs are no longer public information and are HIPAA protected with certain limited exceptions.

863 posted on 07/19/2012 4:35:34 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Have you seen today’s Ulsterman interview?


864 posted on 07/19/2012 4:48:22 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

let me rephrase that:

The notion that Barack Stanley Ann’s child would have to have a great deal of supporting evidence in order for me to take a serious look at it.


865 posted on 07/19/2012 5:16:01 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Kleon; Fred Nerks
Is there a recording?

Of course there is.
866 posted on 07/19/2012 5:54:18 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: bgill

The initial deception wasn’t to produce a future ruler of the world, it was to give a child an ID.


867 posted on 07/19/2012 6:00:49 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
I don't believe I ever said that. And I certainly have never posted that 0bama didn't mislead people on any issue. I said the evidence points to him being born in Hawaii, with no good evidence he was born elsewhere.

The evidence that he wasn't born in Hawaii is the mountain of stonewalling he has thrown up to prevent any scrutiny of his vital documents when the alternative was far easier.

Sure, it's circumstantial evidence, but it is what has fueled the entire issue from the beginning. People cannot help but feel he is hiding something crucial because his recalcitrance indicates he is hiding something crucial. He knew he had told people he was born in Kenya, and he knew it would be brought up as an issue. He had years to prepare for his Presidential run, and he could have gotten something that looked like a genuine Hawaiian original birth certificate back in 2006.

People had REMEMBERED he had claimed to be from Kenya, and so they were very interested in how he was going to square what they remembered of him with the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen." Presenting a computer print out in 2008 was a serious mistake on his part. (Assuming he really was born in Hawaii.) On the other hand, it is the only thing he could have done if he didn't actually have a good birth certificate.

So we are faced with two possibilities. He, and all his supporting legal staff are political and legal idiots, and they didn't bother heading off this obvious political and legal problem early, or He really can't prove he was born in Hawaii.

Obama and Co are very stupid, but his army of lawyers are not. I believe he consulted with them, explained his predicament, and they advised him to take the course of action he has followed; Stonewalling and obfuscation.

Ala Edgar Allen Poe's analysis of "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt", The best evidence he was born off the Island is his manner of dealing with the issue.

I think there is a strong possibility that Stanley Ann went to stay with one of two relatives, and ended up birthing him in Canada, but I don't dismiss the possibility that he was actually born in Hawaii. His actions just don't support this scenario, in my opinion.

868 posted on 07/19/2012 7:56:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

The long game.

Recall in 2008 the unusual path the DNC, Pelosi, and Hawaii took to validate candidate Obama.

Sheriff Joe just removed the LFBC as a valid document, and he vaporized the credibility and completeness of any record released by the Government of Hawaii


869 posted on 07/19/2012 10:02:12 PM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

“your link appears to refer to the RACE OF CHILD - not the RACE OF THE PARENT: “

That is correct. The birth certificate never listed the race of the child - that was determined by the coding of the parents. If both parents were one race the child was listed as that race in the US vital stats. If the parents were a different race than each other, the child was listed as the race of the father. With the exception that if one parent was “negro” and the other was a different race - the child would always be coded as negro. There was most defiantly a classification for “not stated” under race. And in 1962 NJ decided not to include any race identifiers on it’s birth reporting anymore. So every NJ birth was a “not stated”. Not - other non-white, or other, but specifically “not stated”.

I am aware that YOU know this - so this comment is for those that do not.

While I could not find the 1961 VS instruction manual online, I did find reference to it in a ‘62 Vital Stats summary.
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/does-it-exist-the-1961-vital-stat-instruction-manual

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/does-it-exist-the-1961-vital-stat-instruction-manual


870 posted on 07/19/2012 10:03:25 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Yup, Zullo did mention surprise at the extent of the poor and impovrished areas of Hawaii.
Sounds like he talked to 95 year old Verna Lee, and other persons of interest.

I am a bit of a pack rat. I keep sections of newspapers when relatives are born, get married, or pass away.

I would think other like minded pack rats live in Hawaii.
You would simply need a lot of man hours to track down everyone listed in the Birth/Death section of that newspaper


871 posted on 07/19/2012 10:12:16 PM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

The hospital log would NOT be protected by HIPAA. It is standard directory information and FURTHER, the Obamas would have HAD to give permission before the birth could be listed in the newspaper. According to the DOH rules they have to get permission to disclose protected information, but ironically, the only specifically protected information in their rules is the parents’ address. That address was published, hence permission was given, hence that permission was obtained at the hospital and would exempt the Obamas from any disclosure restrictions regarding directory-style information. FURTHER, HIPAA ALLOWS disclosures to law enforcement agents. There is NO LEGAL REASON for the hospital to withhold information that would prove Obama was born there. If Obama wasn’t there, then there would no privacy violation anyway.


872 posted on 07/19/2012 10:51:51 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: LivingNet
What do you think was in the redacted box? even if you spell out stanley ann dunhan obama there is still about 12 more characters missing.

The redacted part most likely was a reference to the trouble in March 1964 regarding the possible impregnation by Obama Sr. of a Kenyan high school exchange student studying in Massachusetts. Probably redacted to protect the girl's identity.

The high school student had left the U.S. and the thinking was that she went to England to get an abortion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722809/posts

873 posted on 07/19/2012 11:12:17 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: edge919
You are wrong, and do not understand HIPAA. (Not the first time you are wrong, as our past discussions show.) I have linked to the the HIPAA privacy rule, have you bothered to read it?

The hospital log would NOT be protected by HIPAA.

Sorry, your assertion does not trump the clearly written information on the HHS HIPAA page. A hospital log is protected, because "the provision of health care to the individual," is protected health information. What do you think a log shows? It shows that health care was provided to an individual.

t is standard directory information and FURTHER, the Obamas would have HAD to give permission before the birth could be listed in the newspaper.

The amount of misunderstanding and time confusion here is staggering. Read the directory exception, and you will discover it is for patients CURRENTLY hospitalized, and that the patient must agree to be listed. Are you claiming that it is currently 1961? As to the Obamas giving permission to list in newspapers in 1961, HIPAA did not exist in 1961, so the information was legal to publish then, even if it came from the hospital. After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.

That address was published, hence permission was given, hence that permission was obtained at the hospital and would exempt the Obamas from any disclosure restrictions regarding directory-style information.

Again, HIPAA wasn't passed at that time. No permission was required then. It is now. And directory information is only permitted for currently hospitalized patients.

FURTHER, HIPAA ALLOWS disclosures to law enforcement agents.

Yes, in specific circumstances only, not just because they "really want to know." Here is what HIPAA says

Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.
Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.

There is NO LEGAL REASON for the hospital to withhold information that would prove Obama was born there.

Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.

874 posted on 07/19/2012 11:17:21 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Read the directory exception, and you will discover it is for patients CURRENTLY hospitalized, and that the patient must agree to be listed.

Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about being CURRENTLY hospitalized.

After HIPAA, it was no longer legal to disclose that information.

This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.

No permission was required then.

I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.

Here is what HIPAA says

Thanks for biting the bullet and proving my point.

Don't think any of those apply to Sheriff Arpaio's investigators.

Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...

Fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison seem like a darn good reason to me.

No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators. And no government agency is going to fine a hospital for confirming the president was born there. You know this is true, so be honest and just admit it. Enough stupid excuses.

875 posted on 07/20/2012 12:57:29 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

I wrote my comment before I saw the link you provided, which I did read. btw, I see nothing about the directory being “current” with respect to it restricting previously compiled directories of then-current patients. If directory information (that the person was in the hospital and where) is open to the public now, then it would seem logical that hospitals would not restrict past “directories” from the public, especially since the one under discussion was in the hospital library, according to Zullo. At the present time, there is said to be a book compiled by Dr. West that is in the State Archives. It contains information about children that he delivered. How can that information be in the state archives since it refers to medical treatment of individuals who probably are still living?


876 posted on 07/20/2012 3:03:05 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

I wrote my comment before I saw the link you provided, which I did read. btw, I see nothing about the directory being “current” with respect to it restricting previously compiled directories of then-current patients. If directory information (that the person was in the hospital and where) is open to the public now, then it would seem logical that hospitals would not restrict past “directories” from the public, especially since the one under discussion was in the hospital library, according to Zullo. At the present time, there is said to be a book compiled by Dr. West that is in the State Archives. It contains information about children that he delivered. How can that information be in the state archives since it refers to medical treatment of individuals who probably are still living?


877 posted on 07/20/2012 3:03:04 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Thanks, Edge. I wrote my comment before I read yours.

Everybody: I have no clue why this system double posts. I make sure to click only once after the preview. I have tried every which way and combination I can think of but it still double posts. If anybody knows how to avoid this, I’d appreciate the tip.

As for the directories: As Edge says, it says nothing about “current” patients. The log discussed by Zullo is a directory. It is in the hospital library and was available to the public even after HIPAA laws.

There is an abundance of medical information on the Internet in the form of death certificates (with details of medical conditions), birth records, birth announcements, burial permit records (with causes of death), newspaper articles with medical information. We see news conferences all the time where doctors give out detailed information about crime victims’ medical conditions.

Vital records were published in newspapers regularly, directly from hospital information. If HIPAA grandfathered all this data out of public view, then why is it still on the Web, in libraries, in archives?

Why did the hospital give me my ancestor’s lab reports? Why do hospitals and doctors regularly give me information about a person’s medical status, when I’m only there visiting the patient when the doctor comes into the room?

There’s said to be a handwritten log of babies that Dr. Rodney West delivered, right in the Hawaiian state archives. That’s medical information. Probably most of these people are still living. Why is that log book in the archives?

There’s nothing in what you linked that talks about current patient directories. If a current directory is open to the public, then why wouldn’t a previous patient directory be open to the public, especially after it was open to the public for years?

As Edge pointed out, Stanley Ann gave permission for the fact of her child’s birth to be announced (snark), so there’s nothing private about that log of patients. Even if you’re going to argue that because it’s a log of mothers going into delivery, it discloses medical information that she was being “treated” for being “punished with a baby,” the FACT that she was in the hospital should not be private. It’s directory information at its scantest.

So the hospital ought to be able to disclose to anyone, but especially to law enforcement, whether or not she was there on August 4, 1961.

HIPAA was designed to try to assuage our concerns about having personal medical records stored in databases and transmitted to clerks at insurance companies. I’m not assuaged, especially now that Obamacare’s going to have this humongous database in DC. Are you comfortable knowing that your data will be there? I’m not. Do you believe it will be kept from prying eyes, especially politically motivated ones? I’m not.

Linda Tripp’s personnel records were protected, for all the good it did her. By the way, if Romney has anything in his IRS records that would damage him, do you think it wouldn’t have been leaked by now, especially considering Obama’s history with getting hold of his opponents’ divorce and custody records in IL? Ha! Dream on.


878 posted on 07/20/2012 3:40:37 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about being CURRENTLY hospitalized.

I should have remembered from our previous discussions that you read things to say what you want them to say, rather than what most people would see. Let’s break it down for you

This is simply a ridiculous excuse. HIPAA didn't make previously disclosed information illegal to disclose. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to suggest.

It seems stupid, but you don’t understand HIPAA – that’s the way it works. Hospitals are not allowed to disclose, whether it’s in the public domain or not. Even if the patient discloses the information, the health care entity is still not allowed to publicly release or discuss the information.

Healthcare providers have a continuing obligation to protect PHI following treatment of a patient, and this obligation is not destroyed by a patient’s self-disclosure of the PHI to an online audience. A provider who discloses PHI it obtained or created in treating the patient without the patient’s specific authorization to do so violates HIPAA, even if the patient has publicly discussed the same or similar information with numerous others.. So the fact that the information may have been previously disclosed, even by the patient, has no effect on the hospital’s duty to keep PHI confidential. Unless there is express written permission, it can’t be released.

I just told you the law in Hawaii required permission to disclose the address. That permission would have been obtained at the hospital if that was where the birth occurred. It's the exact same kind of permission that would be needed to disclose directory information under HIPAA.

Wrong. A release signed by a parent for the Hawaii DOH to release an address in 1961would not be sufficient for the hospital to now release information. The hospital would have to have a signed release form that was HIPAA compliant to release it now.

Only when you ignore the parts about administrative requests, identifying suspects and suspected victims of crime (which would include suspected birth certificate fraud) ...

Read a little more carefully, especially the part early on that says “subject to specified conditions” and think about what you read. Hospitals are very wary about disclosing PHI. They usually want a subpoena or court order. The posse has one of those? Has it been presented to an administrative tribunal? Try telling a hospital in Hawaii that a Sheriff’s posse from Arizona can make an administrative request that they should honor. Further, identifying a suspect is not persuasive – if forgery is proved, everyone knows quite well who the suspect is, and doesn’t need PHI. The hospital will be well within its rights to demand a court order, and this has ultimately been thrown out every time it’s brought to court. Good try. No one can be fined for permissible disclosures, so despite your melodrama, let's focus on the facts once again. There is NO LEGAL REASON this information cannot be disclosed to the investigators.

Wrong again. You obviously are not familiar with HIPAA, and how concerned hospitals are with regard to violations. You declare it legal – I’m sure hospitals are rushing to listen based on your well-known expertise litigating HIPAA… what’s that, you have none? Not surprising you don’t understand the law.

Present Kapiolani with a court order or subpoena, and they should comply. Absent that, I doubt they will disclose PHI, and are undoubtedly concerned about violating HIPAA and the fines.

879 posted on 07/20/2012 10:51:11 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson

To understand HIPAA better, look up the “Minimum necessary rule” which says that hospitals must only release the minimum necessary to perform the function. No way you can make the argument that over 50 years later it is “necessary” to release a directory from 1961.

It doesn’t matter what information is already out in the public domain. It doesn’t matter if the patient has already published the information himself. The hospital still can’t release PHI without express permission from the patient.


880 posted on 07/20/2012 11:06:36 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
"Barack Obama went to work for a firm called Business International Corporation (BIC), a firm that was linked to economic intelligence gathering for the CIA. For one year, Obama worked as a researcher in BIC’s financial services division where he wrote for two BIC publications, Financing Foreign Operations and Business International Money Report, a weekly newsletter."

little barry doesn't impress me as to his work ethic, his intelligence, or his ability to acutally pull off a "job"....

881 posted on 07/20/2012 11:16:45 PM PDT by cherry (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson
There is an abundance of medical information on the Internet in the form of death certificates (with details of medical conditions), birth records, birth announcements, burial permit records (with causes of death), newspaper articles with medical information. We see news conferences all the time where doctors give out detailed information about crime victims’ medical conditions. Vital records were published in newspapers regularly, directly from hospital information. If HIPAA grandfathered all this data out of public view, then why is it still on the Web, in libraries, in archives?

Because the HIPAA laws don't apply to the past newspapers, libraries, etc. It applies to "covered entities". As to doctors giving medical information when you're in the room with the patient, if the patient gives permission, it's entirely legal for the doctor to discuss it in front of you.

As Edge pointed out, Stanley Ann gave permission for the fact of her child’s birth to be announced (snark), so there’s nothing private about that log of patients. Even if you’re going to argue that because it’s a log of mothers going into delivery, it discloses medical information that she was being “treated” for being “punished with a baby,” the FACT that she was in the hospital should not be private. It’s directory information at its scantest.

Sheesh. It doesn't matter what Stanley Ann gave permission for in 1961. What matters is post HIPAA permission. Whether she thought she was "punished with a baby" or not, has nothing to do with it. Talk to a lawyer who deals with HIPAA, rather than making assertions about a law you're not familiar with.

882 posted on 07/20/2012 11:17:46 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies]

To: JoeA

mr barry obama sr was not exactly a good looking guy...can’t imagine any 17 or 18 yr wanting to marry him....


883 posted on 07/20/2012 11:18:21 PM PDT by cherry (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
I should have remembered from our previous discussions that you read things to say what you want them to say, rather than what most people would see.

You should have remembered that this is what YOU do and NOTHING in what you are citing says ANYTHING about needing to be currently hospitalized. You're simply playing a dishonest game of connect-the-dots. You've shown absolutely nothing over which the time element would make a disclosure impermissible, especially when permission had been obtained at the time of admittance. A confirmation that a patient was admitted meets the minimum necessary standard. Again, there's nothing that says there's a time element that invalidates directory information. As for the self-disclosure, your links aren't bringing up anything to back up the quoted material.

Wrong. A release signed by a parent for the Hawaii DOH to release an address in 1961would not be sufficient for the hospital to now release information. The hospital would have to have a signed release form that was HIPAA compliant to release it now.

Where does it say this?? Let's see a link.

Read a little more carefully, especially the part early on that says “subject to specified conditions” and think about what you read. Hospitals are very wary about disclosing PHI. They usually want a subpoena or court order. The posse has one of those? Has it been presented to an administrative tribunal? Try telling a hospital in Hawaii that a Sheriff’s posse from Arizona can make an administrative request that they should honor.

It's what the law says: Read it:

"as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests ...

This is a very BROAD exclusion. It does NOT require a warrant or subpoena, but it INCLUDES those things. There's nothing here that limits where the administrative request has to come from.

Further, identifying a suspect is not persuasive – if forgery is proved, everyone knows quite well who the suspect is, and doesn’t need PHI.

According to whom?? The suspect might be a former hospital staff member who colluded on the forgery (such as the doctor who allegedly signed the long form). Providing a simple confirmation that SAD was what at the hospital could help clear that up. Sometimes law enforcement is trying to make sure a law wasn't broken. There's no compelling reason for the hospital not to cooperate.

And you need to read this. It completely destroys your claims:

HIPAA allows police access to patients, federal judge rules

If law enforcement comes knocking, physicians can disclose limited medical information related to an alleged incident, he said. But if they aren't sure what is required of them, doctors can seek legal counsel and ask to see a legal request.

link to full story

It's time you quit posting ignorance and misinformation about this subject.

884 posted on 07/21/2012 1:53:02 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 879 | View Replies]

To: edge919
You should have remembered that this is what YOU do and NOTHING in what you are citing says ANYTHING about needing to be currently hospitalized. You're simply playing a dishonest game of connect-the-dots. You've shown absolutely nothing over which the time element would make a disclosure impermissible, especially when permission had been obtained at the time of admittance. A confirmation that a patient was admitted meets the minimum necessary standardAgain, there's nothing that says there's a time element that invalidates directory information.

Edge, you’re simply wrong. As part of work, I regularly take courses and test on HIPAA, and you are showing yourself not understanding the law. Let’s go throught it again

A confirmation that a patient was admitted meets the minimum necessary standard. The minimum necessary standard says

A covered entity must make reasonable efforts to use, disclose, and request only the minimum amount of protected health information needed to accomplish the intended purpose of the use, disclosure, or request.
[emphasis added]A confirmation that the patient was admitted meets the minimum necessary standard of providing information for family and visitors during the time the patient is in the hospital, or shortly after release. After that, it no longer accomplishes the purpose, and thus exceeds minimum necessary information to perform that function. Or do you believe that a 50 year old directory is necessary to direct visitors now to a patient long since discharged? You’re being ridiculous about this.

You've shown absolutely nothing over which the time element would make a disclosure impermissible, especially when permission had been obtained at the time of admittance.

The permission obtained in 1961 was not for release of PHI. After the law, they must follow HIPAA guidelines, which require “as the individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes in writing.” Is there a written authorization from 1961 for release of PHI? Does the hospital still have it on file? Is it HIPAA compliant? Does it specify who the information will be released to? Because if not, it is a HIPAA violation.

Where does it say this?? Let's see a link.

Sure - Authorizations must be HIPAA compliant

an “authorization” is required by the Privacy Rule for uses and disclosures of protected health information not otherwise allowed by the Rule. Where the Privacy Rule requires patient authorization, voluntary consent is not sufficient to permit a use or disclosure of protected health information unless it also satisfies the requirements of a valid authorization. An authorization is a detailed document that gives covered entities permission to use protected health information for specified purposes, which are generally other than treatment, payment, or health care operations, or to disclose protected health information to a third party specified by the individual. An authorization must specify a number of elements, including a description of the protected health information to be used and disclosed, the person authorized to make the use or disclosure, the person to whom the covered entity may make the disclosure, an expiration date, and, in some cases, the purpose for which the information may be used or disclosed.
[emphasis added]

As for the self-disclosure, your links aren't bringing up anything to back up the quoted material.

Sorry, the original link through goggle docs is not working – try this more direct link instead. The quoted material is at the bottom of page 3 of the PDF.

"as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests ... This is a very BROAD exclusion. It does NOT require a warrant or subpoena, but it INCLUDES those things. There's nothing here that limits where the administrative request has to come from.

What is an Arizona sheriff’s jurisdiction? Hint: it’s over their specific Arizona county. Do they have jurisdiction in Hawaii? Hint: no. Here is what the American Hospital Association has to say

IS A HOSPITAL REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL?

No. Under the HIPAA privacy rule, these are disclosures that a hospital may make to a law enforcement official without obtaining patient authorization. A hospital is not required under HIPAA to make these disclosures. The hospital will need to have procedures for determining whether other laws – whether state, local or federal – may require disclosure to the law enforcement official under the specific circumstances presented by the request.

[emphasis added] So what do you think Kapiolani, in Hawaii, where the DOH is thoroughly sick of these repeated requests, is going to say to an Arizone posse official who has no law enforcement authority in Hawaii? Most likely, “Show us a court order!” The DOJ is pretty specific about what qualifies as legitimate law enforcement disclosure under HIPAA
To qualify as a disclosure for law enforcement purposes, the subject of the protected health information must be the target or subject of the investigation and the activity or investigation may not relate to: (a) the receipt of health care; (b) a claim for public benefits related to health; or (c) qualification for or receipt of public benefits or services where the subject’s health is integral to the claim for benefits or services.77 In such cases, a covered entity may disclose protected health information to law enforcement pursuant to an administrative request only when the material sought is (1) relevant and material to a law enforcement inquiry, (2) the request is limited in scope in light of the purpose for which it is sought, and (3) de-identified information could not be used by law enforcement for the same purpose.78 However, law enforcement may still acquire records from covered entities without meeting these three requirements through the use of a court order, a subpoena issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena.
Given this, Kapiolani would be reckless to release anything to Sheriff Arapio’s posse without a court order or subpoena.

The suspect might be a former hospital staff member who colluded on the forgery (such as the doctor who allegedly signed the long form). Providing a simple confirmation that SAD was what at the hospital could help clear that up. Sometimes law enforcement is trying to make sure a law wasn't broken. There's no compelling reason for the hospital not to cooperate.

Wrong, for all the reasons I’ve already cited. “Making sure a law isn’t broken” is not a valid exception to HIPAA.

HIPAA allows police access to patients, federal judge rules If law enforcement comes knocking, physicians can disclose limited medical information related to an alleged incident, he said. But if they aren't sure what is required of them, doctors can seek legal counsel and ask to see a legal request.

I suggest you read your own link again. It’s about a hospital worker barring access to a victim of a crime. Which, you may recall, is a specific exception in the law enforcement section of HIPAA. It’s not about disclosure of PHI 50 years later. Good try, but do read what you link.

It's time you quit posting ignorance and misinformation about this subject.

Hm, let’s see who is posting ignorance and misinformation? Someone who has to periodically refresh and test on HIPAA? Or you, with a known history of truncating quotes to make them say what you want, and who has a lack of understanding of what HIPAA actually says? Find a lawyer who litigates HIPAA and check with him – that’ll set you straight.

885 posted on 07/21/2012 6:08:06 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker; edge919
Sorry, one of the links in the previous post is messed up (extra space in the wrong place). Here is the paragraph and correct link: The DOJ is pretty specific about what qualifies as legitimate law enforcement disclosure under HIPAA
To qualify as a disclosure for law enforcement purposes, the subject of the protected health information must be the target or subject of the investigation and the activity or investigation may not relate to: (a) the receipt of health care; (b) a claim for public benefits related to health; or (c) qualification for or receipt of public benefits or services where the subject’s health is integral to the claim for benefits or services.77 In such cases, a covered entity may disclose protected health information to law enforcement pursuant to an administrative request only when the material sought is (1) relevant and material to a law enforcement inquiry, (2) the request is limited in scope in light of the purpose for which it is sought, and (3) de-identified information could not be used by law enforcement for the same purpose.78 However, law enforcement may still acquire records from covered entities without meeting these three requirements through the use of a court order, a subpoena issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena.
Given this, Kapiolani would be reckless to release anything to Sheriff Arapio’s posse without a court order or subpoena.
886 posted on 07/21/2012 6:12:08 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/disclosures_for_law_enforcement_purposes/index.html


887 posted on 07/21/2012 6:20:50 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
As I posted above: The DOJ is pretty specific about what qualifies as legitimate law enforcement disclosure under HIPAA
To qualify as a disclosure for law enforcement purposes, the subject of the protected health information must be the target or subject of the investigation and the activity or investigation may not relate to: (a) the receipt of health care; (b) a claim for public benefits related to health; or (c) qualification for or receipt of public benefits or services where the subject’s health is integral to the claim for benefits or services.77 In such cases, a covered entity may disclose protected health information to law enforcement pursuant to an administrative request only when the material sought is (1) relevant and material to a law enforcement inquiry, (2) the request is limited in scope in light of the purpose for which it is sought, and (3) de-identified information could not be used by law enforcement for the same purpose.78 However, law enforcement may still acquire records from covered entities without meeting these three requirements through the use of a court order, a subpoena issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena.
So the investigation may not be related to the receipt of health care. And that's what the posse wants to know - did SAD receive health care at Kapiolani?

Any hospital with any sense would not risk a violation on something this flimsy, they would insist on a court order or subpoena.

888 posted on 07/21/2012 6:33:43 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

The investigation is about confirming the authenticity of the vital record and making a determination on Obama’s citizenship status, not to investigate SAD’s pregnancy. The so-called “receipt of health care” is incidental because a child can be delivered without receiving health care. Sorry, this is yet another of your ignorant and irrelevant excuses.


889 posted on 07/22/2012 8:40:46 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The investigation is about confirming the authenticity of the vital record and making a determination on Obama’s citizenship status, not to investigate SAD’s pregnancy. The so-called “receipt of health care” is incidental because a child can be delivered without receiving health care. Sorry, this is yet another of your ignorant and irrelevant excuses.

Edge, why don't you just admit that you have no idea of what HIPAA entails?

The investigation is based on whether or not SAD received health care at this particular hospital. Delivery of a child by any health care provider is receiving health care. Then the baby receives health care as well. Go look up what's involved with a delivery and with newborn care. You are making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

890 posted on 07/22/2012 12:02:48 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I agree!!

I wrote to my Congressman.... I posted it as a tip on Brietbart.com

I mentioned Andrew Breitbart Died to expose the truth & they needed to follow in Andrew’s footsteps..... I think there is great “fear” with the people running breitbart.com..... I have tried to get the word out... We need also to Pray to “God” to help save our wonderful Country !!

This is a good link:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/07/trump-forces-hannity-to-talk-obamas.html

We need Trump to get more involved..... He is correct!!..... Romney should say he is not going to release any my tax returns until Obama releases all of his records!!!

Thanks for your post!!


891 posted on 07/22/2012 12:23:23 PM PDT by ebysan (ebysan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Edge, why don't you just admit that you have no idea of what HIPAA entails?

Because I'm not going to tell a lie just to make you feel better about your ignorance. Nobody is buying your nonsense after they've had a chance to see what the law really says.

892 posted on 07/22/2012 1:39:53 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So are you still trying to claim that delivering a baby does not constitute providing health care?


893 posted on 07/22/2012 2:20:31 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 892 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Still claiming that?? Where did I ever make such a claim?? And provide an EXACT quote that is phrased as you have done here, trying pathetically to put words in my mouth. And when you can’t, admit you’re dishonest. Hop to.


894 posted on 07/22/2012 2:37:23 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Where did I ever make such a claim?? And provide an EXACT quote that is phrased as you have done here, trying pathetically to put words in my mouth.

Here it is, from your post #889:

The so-called “receipt of health care” is incidental because a child can be delivered without receiving health care.[emphasis added]
Note the ignorance displayed by this statement. If a health care professional delivers a baby, the mother and child have received health care. If a health care professional assesses the infant and puts drops in the eyes as has been routinely done, the child has received health care.
895 posted on 07/22/2012 5:24:14 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Danae; LucyT; Fred Nerks; little jeremiah

Interesting revalation of the coding (V.K. Lee) that I always wonder what it signified as. And interesting word blind Soetoro “Prarie Dogs” attacking the messenger instead of the message, like the old SPs here!!!

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/secret-of-obamas-phantom-numbers-uncovered/


896 posted on 07/22/2012 9:47:54 PM PDT by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Note the ignorance displayed by this statement.

The only ignorance is your intentional mischaracterization of my comment by trying to make it a broad statement when it was specifically about the purpose of the investigation, which wasn't about health care but citizenship status and potential birth certificate fraud. If the child wasn't born in the hospital or treated by a medical professional, the no health care was received. [emphasis added]

897 posted on 07/22/2012 10:10:18 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You have repeatedly made erroneous statements about HIPAA, refused to acknowledge when my links showed your errors, posted links that did not prove your points, and topped it off by saying “a child can be delivered without receiving health care.” You make claims as if you were a lawyer about a law you don’t understand, and won’t consult anyone who does understand it. I’m done with this conversation.


898 posted on 07/22/2012 11:36:22 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 897 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Wow, that’s a lot of whining and absolutely no honesty. Do us all a favor and don’t post any more ignorant bleating about HIPAA.


899 posted on 07/23/2012 12:03:17 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen; Las Vegas Ron
Ron Obama was s Permanent Resident Alien living in the U.S. from 1971 until 1983; when he naturalized as a U.S. Citizen.

Where is your source from that he naturalized 1983. Or is that another Red Herring???

900 posted on 07/25/2012 1:13:03 PM PDT by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850851-900 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson