DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[Red Steel]

Yup, Alright. I opened the link “Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaints”.

[parsifal]

Thank you! I have been catching heck on this thread. Wild hordes of ravening birthers. So far, the center holds!

parsy, the happy warrior

[STARWISE]

Ok .. so posting it as if it’s an affirmative
truth or finding is grossly INACCURATE and
misleading.

[edge919]

Asking for records you are forbidding by law from accessing is not (in case you were unaware) provided for in these essential laws.

It is. Again HRS 388-18(d) provides the Director of the DOH broad discretionary authority to release any information she deems as appropriate, she can release non-certified copies of said records to the public, and the UIPA supports public interest ahead of personal privacy.

That would be Birther lie #27b.

There's no lie and no such thing as "Birthers." The Kenyan-born Obama has been broadly reported and one of his own homies said he was born in Indonesia. Since we don't have solid proof of where he was born, these claims can't be ruled out.

Smith says he got the BC (and it is date stamped) on February 19, 2009 from Chief Administrator Heltan Maganga.

I don't see a hiring or termination dates of the these administrators in the news stories. Sometimes you have deputy administrators who may be acting as chief administrator in the absence of the full chief administrator. Dr. Othigo spent a lot of time away from her administrative duties doing academic research. This 'timing' issue is very similar in nature to the forkchunk.org photos of the alleged Obama COLB in that they contained embedded dates that were five months earlier than the pictures were claimed to be taken. AT best, neither document is proven, but I've never claimed the Kenyan certificate was in the first place.

Except that it is against the law to do so.

It's not against the law. You've been duped by intentionally misleading statements.

Oh, sorry to disappoint you, but they have. Rather directly. Here's what they said about it:

You said earlier that the State Department said the alleged COLB was 'absolute proof' of Obama's Hawaiian birth and natural born citizenship. What you've cited is a standard denial of allegations, not a direct statement that Obama's alleged COLB is absolute proof of anything. To such an extent that they are issuing standard denials, they have said nothing affirmative about the COLB.

[BP2]

> Wild hordes of ravening birthers. So far, the center holds! parsy, the happy warrior

LOL! Hiding in your grain cellar while your fields are being burned and your castles walls
are being ravaged is generally not seen as "holding the center." But one delusional state begets
another in the "World According to Brave Sir Parsifell", so whatever does it for ya, monkey-boy.

Still waiting on an answer to rate your screwed up judgment in Obama's COLB ...

Please rate the integrity & honesty surrounding the Chain of Custody of Obama's "birth certificate."

Answer the following honestly ("1" is LOW, "10" is HIGH):

Rate the integrity & honesty of Barack Hussein Obama?

Rate the integrity & honesty of Obama's
2008 Chicago Campaign office?

Rate the non-partisanship of FactCheck.org
in "evaluating" Obama's COLB?

Rate the integrity & honesty of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC?

From to to by

[parsifal]

I am sill over-whelmed by your “logic.” It seems to be:

“Obama’s” a liar, so therefore it stands to reason he was born in Kenya, and we know he was born in
Kenya, because he’s a liar, which leads one to the conclusion that monkey pictures prove all this, because everyone knows that monkeys live in Kenya, further supporting the obvious fact Obama is a liar, and monkeys DO have birth certicates, unless they have COLBs, from Hawaii, which are not primate facie on the Internet, because Obama is a liar, which means that chains of evidence apply, unless Kenya monkeys with COLBs, and Obama is a liar, so therefore Kenya monkeys do NOT have COLBs, and Hawaii is definitely not an African”

parsy, who admits your logic is “special”

[BP2]

> therefore it stands to reason he was born in Kenya

Kenya?! You and your After-Birthers ... I think you're
suffering from potassium poisoning and it's contributing
to your confusion, monkey-boy. You better sit down. LOL.

You still have not offered a scintilla of logic as to WHY
you TRUST what THIS document says ... as offered by THIS man:

[parsifal]

Uh, ....it looks real to me. Uh....the birth announcments look real. Uh.....the Birthers haven’t offered any good reasons why I shouldn’t. Uh.....the Birhters don’t come across as a reasonable people for the most part. Uh......like you can show a Birther something in plain English and if it doesn’t fit their mindset, they deny it exists. Uh......many Birthers seem to have a fascination with monkeys.....Uh....I don’t see Obama being any more of a liar than any other politician.... Uh.....I still have a functioning brain....

parsy, who could probably “uh” for a while

[BP2]

Uh, ....it looks real to me.

Uh ... here's your sign, monkey-boy:

[Gorefan]

Now that this thread is beginning to die down, I thought I’d get your opinion on something. Would your opinion of the Vattel verus Blackstone debate change if there were documents in which some of the founding fathers expressed an interest in Vattel’s definition of citizenship?

[EnderWiggins]

"An original birth certificate does NOT = vital recordssssss (plural, do you understand??).

I know that Birthers have an obsession with parsing plurals, generally in the service of bastardizing common English language usage. But sorry, a reference to "vital records" is simply common usage for a category of document. The specific document(s) in question has been explicitly identified by Dr. Fukino, so your continued confusion is frankly inexplicable.

" If the little bastard’s BC was legit and proved place of birth, there’s no need to cite anything else, yet she did."

In point of fact (and it's a shame I have to point this out to you so many times) the only document she actually cited at all was his "original birth certificate."

Like MissTickly and butterdezillion, you have allowed your imagination to get the best of you and have deluded yourself to believe she has said things that cannot be found in either of her statements or in any related correspondence.

To believe that someone's failure to say what you wanted them to say is actually a secret way of saying what you wanted anyway... well it's just insane.

[edge919]

But sorry, a reference to "vital records" is simply common usage for a category of document.

Sorry, but this argument is pure nonsense. Fukino had no problem being specific in her previous statement. She had no reason to be vague in her second, unless she was talking about diffent documents. And she emphasized the vital records statement was separate from the birth certificate statement. The claim of Hawaiian birth is not based on the original birth certificate, else she would have said so.

In point of fact (and it's a shame I have to point this out to you so many times) the only document she actually cited at all was his "original birth certificate."

Only to the extent that the state of Hawaii has one on file. She said nothing about the contents of this document nor whether she actually looked at it or even that she read it. She definitely avoided saying that its contents matched the same contents in the alleged COLB. No, you've fallen prey to classic double-speak or are simply reading something between the lines that was never stated. All you have is faith, not fact.

[EnderWiggins]

"The most obvious reason is that each department in the hospital could have a chief administrator of that department simply as an alternate title for department head, so there could multiple chief administrators in the hospital for each department. Long titles take up precious space in newspaper stories and on administrative stamps and may be abbreviated for convenience."

Okay, let's test that little theory.

If there were more than one at a time, we should be able to find simultaneous overlapping references to both at the same time? But we don't, we only find one at a time, and there is clear point at which one is (in the coverage) replaced by the other.

From 2001 until at least 2006 the Chief Administrator was Dr Khadija Shikelly. No overlap with any other in all that time either..

If you don't believe me, go search for yourself... go check. I have.

[EnderWiggins]

"Do you mean "presenting the document" in court?"

Of course.

"If so, why doesn't Obama do that?"

Because no court has ever asked him to.

"If "Simply presenting the document" {in court} it would follow that "the case would be closed with no further investigation" would one even need a lawyer -- let alone several law firms -- to do that?"

Actually, if you've ever read a Birther case you would not be so misinformed. Not a single Birther case (with perhaps the exception of Martin v. Lingle) would have ended if Obama presented his BC.... even if it was the long form. In every case, Obama (and McCain in all three of his suits) did the single thing that would be least expensive, use the fewest number of lawyers and the least amount of their time, and end the cases as quickly as possible; they moved (successfully) to dismiss.

[parsifal]

No, because the Wong court covered the “laws of nations” arguments in its decision and plucked out what it needed. Plus, Vattel is merely a commentator on the law, and would hold little or no value to an American court. Many of the Founders were learned men, and lawyers. Practicing law BEFORE the revolution would have required a grounding in English common law. That is the more likely source of the language, by far.

I have no doubt some of the Founders had read Vattel. I think maybe John Jay did from some of the stuff I have read. But the Wong court was very thorough in its reasoning. They went above and beyond the call of duty which is why Wong is still cited today. Maybe they wanted to CYA themselves since they were making Chinamen born here into NBCs.

Plus Blackstone was very influential and a very conservative lawyer. He is some people’s answer to judicial activism.

http://www.blackstoneinstitute.org/

The anti-Blackstoners know not what they do.

This is long, but well worth it:

Sir William Blackstone

The Blackstone Institute honors Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780). Blackstone was the great Eighteenth Century English legal scholar whose philosophy and writings were infused with Judeo-Christian principles. The Ten Commandments are at the heart of Blackstone’s philosophy. Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority. Blackstone’s great work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, was basic to the U. S. Constitution. This work has sold more copies in America than in England and was a basic textbook of America’s early lawyers. It was only in the mid-Twentieth Century that American law, being re-written by the U. S. Supreme Court, repudiated Blackstone. An attack on Blackstone is an attack on the U. S. Constitution and our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The Blackstone Institute is committed to reviving the Constitution and its Blackstonian foundations.

Bashing Blackstone: The Reconstructionists’
Attack in America’s Culture War
[An initial version of this article was published in Rare Jewel Magazine, March-April 2005]

Sir William Blackstone, the eminent Eighteenth Century English law professor and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, has wielded incalculable effects on law in America for the past 225 years. His Commentaries were the law textbook in Great Britain and the United States well after their initial publication. “Bashing Blackstone” is an invisible but critical dimension of the Reconstructionists (liberal/activist) attack in American’s Culture War. We Constitutionalists must therefore arm ourselves with a basic knowledge of Blackstone and his Commentaries.

I. Why Study Blackstone’s Commentaries?

Commentaries on the Laws of England (published between 1765 and 1769) by Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) has been abandoned in the Humanistic jurisprudence (legal and constitutional philosophy) that permeates contemporary anti-Judeo-Christian judicial decisions.1 Blackstone also is virtually absent from American legal education today. What, then, is the significance of Blackstonian thought to today’s law?

The answer is simple. Blackstone’s Commentaries are one of the most complete, consistent, humanly authored expositions of the Judeo-Christian worldview of law ever written. Blackstone’s immeasurable influence on both English and American law was universally recognized until well into the Twentieth Century, although the “bashing of Blackstone” in America began after the Civil War. Christopher Columbus Langdell a militant evolutionist who became Dean of the Harvard Law School in 1870, thought Blackstonian principles had to be ripped from American law not because they were wrong, but because they were a bulwark of protection against the growing Humanistic movement headed by Langdell and other elitists.2

But Blackstone’s jurisprudential views were not quickly eliminated. In the views of distinguished observers, “The influence of Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England . . . was phenomenal and as great in American as in England”; 3 and “Upon Blackstone’s Commentaries, United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and other early American jurists built the American legal system.”4 Indeed, in the most notable of Marshall’s decisions, he cited Blackstone several times to advance the concept of Constitutional supremacy over the power of judges.5 This fact is especially important today since judicial supremacists still cite Marbury as the source of judicial power. We must forcefully and consistently insist that these judges exercise judicial review only if they understand and apply this power within the entire context of Marshall’s – i.e., Blackstonian – philosophy.

Statistics also demonstrate Blackstone’s influence in America. Drs. Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman analyzed the various sources read and cited by our Founding Fathers; Blackstone was by far the most-cited English/American scholar.6 The American Revolution was a revolt against the politics of English government, but not its legal foundations; the Commentaries, in fact, were cited nearly 10,000 times in the reports of American courts between 1789 and 1915.7

In the world of Humanistic scholarship today, these facts are ignored because history in general is scorned as central to the process of interpreting the US Constitution. But Humanists as well as the rest of us constantly cite history. The only question is whom they cite and when that which they cite occurred. The principles of

Blackstone’s CommentariesBlackstone’s Commentaries infuse our Constitution, and their revival deserves our most careful attention today.

II. Who Was Sir William Blackstone?

William Blackstone was born in 1723, several months after his father’s death. His mother died when he was 12 years old. Considered a poor orphaned boy, he nonetheless received an excellent education, supported by prominent individuals, and did well in his studies. The legal profession eventually claimed him; he was entered as a student of law in the Inns of Court at the Middle Temple8 ; and in 1746 he joined the bar.

In 1750 Blackstone received the degree of Doctor of Civil Law and left the practice of law for academic life. In 1758 he was elected the first Vinerian Professor of Law at Oxford. Blackstone was highly regarded by his contemporaries who shared our Judeo-Christian worldview. Professor Frederic Maitland declared that “Bracton [“Father of Common Law”] 9 was rivaled by no English juridical writer till Blackstone arose five centuries afterwards. Twice in the history of England has an Englishman had the motive, the courage, the power to write a great readable, reasonable book about English law as a whole.”10 But his ideas drew some criticism, particularly from Jeremy Bentham, the empiricist whose views were antithetical to the Judeo-Christian worldview and significantly contributed to attacks on this worldview by later Humanists.

Blackstone wrote the Commentaries to organize and explain English law as it had come to exist by the late 1800s. He desired to reach not only “the Profession of the Common Law; but of such others also, as are desirous to be in some Degree acquainted with the Constitution and Polity of their own Country”11 and “to render the whole [of his analysis of the Common Law] intelligible to the uniformed minds of beginners . . . .”12 Blackstone first presented his material as lectures, but after students sold notes purporting to be his thoughts, he published his own edition, in four volumes.

parsy, who says it should be the 18th century, not the late 1800s

[EnderWiggins]

"Again HRS 388-18(d) provides the Director of the DOH broad discretionary authority to release any information she deems as appropriate, she can release non-certified copies of said records to the public, and the UIPA supports public interest ahead of personal privacy."

Again, neither HRS 388-18(d) nor UIPA gives the Director of the DOH the discretionary authority to break the clear letter of the law.

"The Kenyan-born Obama has been broadly reported and one of his own homies said he was born in Indonesia."

It does not matter what "has been broadly reported." It only matters what its true, and what is not. It is simply a lie that Obama's grandmother ever said he was born in Kenya. And what some "homie" says hardly satisfies any exception to the hearsay rule unless the "homie" was present at the birth.

"I don't see a hiring or termination dates of the these administrators in the news stories. Sometimes you have deputy administrators who may be acting as chief administrator in the absence of the full chief administrator."

Having actually worked in health care for most of my career, much of that time working with hospital executives, no you don't. A deputy administrator is a deputy administrator, even when filling in for the boss.

"This 'timing' issue is very similar in nature to the forkchunk.org photos of the alleged Obama COLB in that they contained embedded dates that were five months earlier than the pictures were claimed to be taken.

Nonsense. A date stamp on a digital image says whatever the internal clock of the camera was set at. The date on a newspaper article reflects the date the article was released. There is no meaningful comparison.

"You said earlier that the State Department said the alleged COLB was 'absolute proof' of Obama's Hawaiian birth and natural born citizenship."

That was a reference to State Department regulations which have been in place since long before Obama was elected. They prescribe exactly what characteristics a document must hove to be proof of citizenship at birth. And Obama's COLB exceeds them.

"What you've cited is a standard denial of allegations, not a direct statement that Obama's alleged COLB is absolute proof of anything. To such an extent that they are issuing standard denials, they have said nothing affirmative about the COLB."

Nonsense.

The denials are explicitly that Strunk's claims (which you parrot) are false. They are denials made under oath by an organization in a position to know. If you read the entire response, you will have noted that the DOS and DHS do not hesitate to admit when they do not have the information necessary to be certain of their statements, and they then refuse to either deny or confirm; they do exactly that several times.

But not on the suitability of the COLB as legal proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth and natural born American citizenship. On that issue they come flat out and deny that Strunk is correct in his accusations.

And those are your accusations too, denied by the DOS.

Thay also deny that Obama was ever adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and that he was ever an Indonesian citizen.

And again... they do so under penalty of perjury.

[bgill]

The last Census released was the 1930.

[EnderWiggins]

"Sorry, but this argument is pure nonsense. Fukino had no problem being specific in her previous statement. She had no reason to be vague in her second, unless she was talking about diffent documents."

Then it is a very good thing that she was not vague.

The second statement is in fact far more explicit, given the Birther inability to understand what she said in her first; i.e. that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural born citizen.

Of course, we all know (as you so well demonstrate) that Birthers do not care what people say. They care only about what they want them to say, and will show complete shamelessness in reinterpreting them beyond recognition.

It's like every time Orly Taitz announced things like "Chief Justice Roberts promised" her case would be heard by SCOTUS, or when she told the DC Tea Party that she had been granted discovery in the Barnett Case within 30 days, or that her case had been scheduled for arguments on... pick an date. In ever case she was deluding herself, as the transcripts and the results show.

Delusion is central to the Birther mythos. Without it, you would have nothing to write about.

[edge919]

Then it is a very good thing that she was not vague.

Since you claims she wasn't vague, then you can tell me how many documents she was referring to, the title of each of document, when each was dated and by whom they are signed. Until you can do that, you're simply in hopeless denial (which we already know). So please, let's not act like this is something that it's not.

[edge919]

Again, neither HRS 388-18(d) nor UIPA gives the Director of the DOH the discretionary authority to break the clear letter of the law.

HRS 338-18(d) says: "such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public." UIPA 92F-14(a) says: "(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual." That would be check and mate.

It only matters what its true, and what is not.

No kidding. So why fight the disclosure of a record that doesn't need to be hidden??

It is simply a lie that Obama's grandmother ever said he was born in Kenya. And what some "homie" says hardly satisfies any exception to the hearsay rule unless the "homie" was present at the birth.

Until official documents are released, hearsay is all we have for claims of Hawaiian birth.

Having actually worked in health care for most of my career, much of that time working with hospital executives, no you don't. A deputy administrator is a deputy administrator, even when filling in for the boss.

So hearsay is okay when you say it?? Please.

Nonsense. A date stamp on a digital image says whatever the internal clock of the camera was set at. The date on a newspaper article reflects the date the article was released. There is no meaningful comparison.

Wrong. The meaningful comparison is that we don't have all the facts. You can't presume one instance disproves one thing while the other is legit. I'm on the side of having ALL the facts and not trying to guess.

That was a reference to State Department regulations which have been in place since long before Obama was elected. They prescribe exactly what characteristics a document must hove to be proof of citizenship at birth. And Obama's COLB exceeds them.

The denials said nothing about whether the state department personally inspected any documents. They sure as hell didn't say the COLB 'exceeds' anything. That's just fantasy.

And again... they do so under penalty of perjury.

These are denials of allegations not testimony of fact. There's a major difference. The allegations have to be proven. Denials don't. Sorry, but a denial is not affirmation of factuality, especially when there's no evidence that documents were inspected for accuracy, that the state department has full knowledge of the Soetoro/Dunham marital arrangement, etc. Don't make this so easy.