MT immediately contacted Okubo to ask what is meant by “vital records” as used in Fukino’s July 27 statement. Okubo sent a Wikipedia entry basically saying it means birth, death, or marriage certificates.
Receipts would be kept in a processing file but not in the vital record file. They’re stored separately - have different retention schedules and record labels.
A birth certificate that has been amended cannot be evaluated apart from the supplementary evidence that goes with it. Supplementary evidence is kept in a different file than the actual certificate. So if a person was going to verify something on a birth certificate that had been amended they would have to look in the file of supplementary documentation.
That is the most likely explanation for why Fukino referred to vital records (plural) when verifying information for the only vital event Obama has recorded at the DOH. If the item she was verifying was not amended she could have just mentioned the birth certificate. But the item that was amended can’t be verified apart from looking at the file of documentation for the amended claim.
The fact that she referred to the vital records (plural) indicates that she had to look at more than just the BC - so whatever she was verifying was an amended item. And she was verifying place of birth.
The bottom line is that a citation of vital records in the plural means the birth certificate alone is not enough to prove Obama was born in Hawaii. A marriage and death certificate would not work, so the only other vital record maintained by the DOH are divorce records, and Okubo outright lied about the DOH maintaining any divorce records when it’s clearly stated they do under law and on the DOH Web site. The other possibility, besides the divorce record, are adoption records. IOW, Obama could have been adopted AT BIRTH. Perhaps the Obama birth certificate references adoption papers when the baby was born to its biological mother (not Stanley Ann). Fukino may have looked at those adoption papers to see where it said the baby was born, but is barred from disclosing ANYTHING about adoption by law. It still doesn’t explain the fraudulent cert number on the funkcheck.org COLB.
VERY good analysis. You have more information that I do. I bow to your superior knowledge!
Thank you for pressing the issue with her and with the DOH in general. They and the OIP are like dealing blows to pillows... its hard to get any satisfaction out of them.....
Nice work!
I agree. This is succinct. Nice explanation!
There’s one other thing. Place of birth wouldn’t have had to be what was amended, if place of birth was also supported by supplementary information.
So it could well be that the original birth certificate - including place of birth - was based solely on affidavits (which would mean it was NOT filed by either SAD, BHO, or a doctor). If that was the case then Fukino would need to refer to records (plural) to verify place of birth even if something else was amended.
Whatever was amended was through a document that didn’t have a doctor’s, midwife’s, or nurse’s signature on it, if Okubo gave me an accurate response to a UIPA request (big if, I know).
Does anybody know if pages from medical files have signatures on them? Like if I asked for a copy of a page from my chart - maybe symptoms I had reported or something like that - would there be a signature on that?
If my baby was born at home in Ohio and we immediately moved to Missouri, where he had his well-baby check-ups, would the Missouri doctor ask ME (myself) for birth information such as birth length, weight, head circumference, etc since there was no doctor’s examination from Ohio?