Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion
The trouble is that the Administrative Rules have always forbidden disclosures from the certificates themselves except the release of actual certificates. The exception is the index data.

And the index data LAW has an exception. It gives the director discretion to release data for whatever reason she or he deems appropriate.

If index data can be anything, then what would stop Fukino from saying the whole darn BC was index data and selectively choose to tell everybody all the gory details of the vaginal birth, infections, etc from the BC for somebody she particularly doesn’t like - while hiding EVERYTHING (including the legal status of their late, amended BC) for somebody she either likes or who is bribing her?

Nothing legally stops her, unless perhaps it involves HIPAA laws covering health information, etc.

If Fukino can say 2 items are index data for you but all 65 items are index data for me, then exactly what disclosures are prohibited by the rules and by HRS 338-18a?

The point is that 338-18(a) doesn't specifically prohibit the director from releasing information because of its exception clause. Spokesbabe Okubo would be prohibited from releasing anything beyond basic index data, but Fukino, as the director, has statutory authority to decide what data can and can't be released. The part we should be upset about is the excuses made by Fukino that she can't release information when clearly she can.

The birth announcements are a whole ‘nother story. Since 1976 the HDOH gives lists for the newspapers, but if they did anything before that - given what I’ve observed and can document - then they also pick and choose which births they report. Would that be within the power of the director - to report some births but not all? And to report some births to one paper but not the other?

What newspapers print is up to the newspapers, not the DOH. I don't think it's realistic to assume that the DOH didn't provide a full list of births. What newspapers print is determined by the amount of space available, and it wouldn't be unlikely for them to omit listings that just didn't fit in the paper on a given day. They may have had criteria for omitting birth listings, such as being outside certain geographic regions or not publishing births to unwed mothers, etc.

See, the issue of due process is a big one, because if records can each be treated differently on a whim, then there is no way to make any sense out of what a government agency does, no way that it even makes any difference what their legal procedures, protocols, and rules are.

I think we're seeing this with the passport records, except this isn't based on a whim.

I believe that if Fukino was going to reveal anything from Obama’s birth certificate she could do so because Obama had already published what he said was his BC. But I believe the way she had to reveal it - by the language of UIPA, HRS 338-18a, and the HDOH Administrative Rules - was by making public the document itself in response to a UIPA request. She refuses to do that.

I still disagree in that the 338-18(d) could be used by Fukino to release particular pieces of information. In particular, I've always felt the quickest and simplest legal way she could confirm Obama's alleged COLB is by verifying what certificate number is on Obama's official, original birth record. The fact that they have avoided doing so - when there's no reason no to - tells me Obama's COLB is not legit.

251 posted on 09/10/2010 8:03:55 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

“Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.”

I see what you’re saying but the HDOH says there is no “other such data as the director” has authorized. They say index data authorized for release is type of event, name, and gender.

If the director can authorize anything and everything to be released for just certain people, I don’t understand what HRS 338-18a even means or why it exists. Is it just to say the director can do whatever she wants but nobody in her office can? Maybe it depends on how it’s interpreted. Maybe the only limits to Fukino are the exceptions listed in UIPA. I don’t know.

But I do know that Fukino has been using HRS 338-18a as the catch-all reason for not releasing anything. Neither she nor the AG’s office will say why all of a sudden HRS 338-18a doesn’t forbid her from making an announcement of the birthplace listed on Obama’s records.

And that’s on reason that I agree that a big problem is Fukino lying about what she supposedly can’t release. The Ombudsman caught her in that lie but apparently refused to do anything about it.

The newspaper announcements were a continuous-running thing. Announcements were printed as much as a month after the birth so space issues wouldn’t have been the deciding factor. And even accounting for the locations of the births, I think about a third of the births the CDC Natality Report listed for Oahu in August 1961 (for instance) didn’t get printed in the Star-Bulletin. The Nordyke twins, for instance, were born in Honolulu and never made it into the Star-Bulletin even though there were days around then when the paper had no birth announcements listed at all and could easily have fit their announcement.

Hopefully I’ll soon have the last bit of information I need in order to do a complete summary of what we know about the birth announcement situation. Feels like I’ve been saying that forever but you wouldn’t believe the amount of obfuscation involved. Well... you know enough about this stuff that you probably do know what I’m dealing with. lol.

I agree with you that if information has been released to the public for birth announcements, or even just a posting at the HDOH office that was available for public viewing, it makes it disingenuous for the HDOH to argue that they can’t release that information. If they couldn’t release it, then why did they already release it?

And you’re absolutely dead-on about the birth certificate number. That, right there, is the Achilles heel that could expose this whole mess, and they know it and are circling the wagons.

The passport situation is another thing which is very quickly becoming a legal problem for Obama and his minions. Watching that one develop is like watching hot and cold fronts moving toward each other and knowing it’s only a matter of time before the tornadic rotation begins. The proverbial excrement hitting the rotating object. If it was all just a game and wasn’t putting the nation in jeopardy, it would be hilarious to watch.


253 posted on 09/10/2010 8:59:32 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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