Posted on 06/15/2011 8:52:24 AM PDT by westcoastwillieg
The state of Hawaii claims that the "birth certificate" for Barack Obama in its files – presumably the document that was copied and distributed by the White House – remains confidential.
The image released April 27 by the White House was described by administration officials as "proof positive" of Obama's Hawaiian birth.
At that time, officials in Hawaii's health department and governor's office refused to provide confirmation to WND that the image released by the White House accurately represented the birth documentation in the state's custody.
Now, officials have refused to respond to a subpoena requesting the birth record, citing confidentiality...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If they do not give me a copy, then we can know that both you and your state are involved in some kind of cover-up to conceal the facts surrounding your birth.
“Birthers always read more into my comments than is really there. It’s a game y’all play when you have nothing to add or no logical argument.”
Are you calling me fat?
No. People have advanced the same argument for HIPAA confidentiality, and it doesn't work any better there. There are state laws on what the state may release. If an individual chooses to release information on his own, it has no effect on the state law. The state remains bound by its own laws.
Your piece of crap piece of innuendo has no place in the discussion
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. It takes a "special" class of person to continually insert themselves into a discussion whereby they do nothing but carp at others and insinuate that they are irrational bordering on insanity. Am I to understand you don't like it when it's done to you? HMMMMM????
If you don't want to contribute anything useful to the effort to understand what is the truth about Barack Obama, I would advise you to absent yourself from discussions that do. But something tells me you will simply not be able to stay away.
Give my regards to Kevin Davidson. It's been awhile since I kicked his @ss in a discussion, and I think it's just about time to go back and do it again. He argues like a child, as do most Democrats, because they have a genetic defect when it comes to rational thinking.
Nope. I’m calling you a TROLL. ;p
Geeze, the fogbow crew showed up. Looks like they have each other on speed dial. :)
I can't speak for him, but I would suggest a good basis is the fact that Democrats are lying whores who can't tell the truth except by accident. Since All of Hawaiian government is made up of Democrats, it's pretty much axiomatic that there is a high degree of incompetence and lying going on IMO.
Please explain how the Subpoena is invalid and did not follow “ANY of the legal steps”. I would also like to know how you determine the Subpoena would never have been issued.
The subpoena was issued. Taitz issued same. The Court does not issue the Subpoena. The recipient, HI, can not refuse to comply. They can petition the court to “quash” the subpoena. They have to argue their case.
As far as standing is concerned, she is the Attorney and/or Plaintiff. That is all the standing she needs. She has an issue before the court so she must have standing. She probably applied to appear Pro Hac Vice. I’m sure she has a Federal Bar Licence because she has already been in front of several Federal courts.
Seems like the OBOTS are getting jittery. Market plubging today. O’s approval rating hitting new lows. It is all sunshine in my world!
Statutes about criminal fraud have already been posted more than once on FR.
You find em if you want to keep imagining that a presidential candidate, and then president, can present forgeries of birth documents and it’s not a crime.
If you think anyone doesn’t see what you are, you’re smoking too much weed.
I'm inclined to think that if you smoke enough weed, his arguments might actually make sense. :) (I'm pretty sure Barack is steering his course on Meth or Crack, the way his ideological ancestor (Hitler) did. )
By the Way, did you know that Ted Kennedy was a lying drunken scum that ought to have been in Jail? I used to get pissed because everyone in the Senate would be polite to him instead of calling him a drunken lying murdering bastard to his face every time they saw him. Doesn't Everybody in this thread agree that Democrats Like Ted Kennedy are perfect representatives of the Democrat Party? Lying drunken party boys who don't care who their actions end up killing. Did I mention his Treason? Not nearly enough people know that Teddy flew to Moscow for the express purpose of undermining President Ronald Reagan. (Greatest President since George Washington.) He offered his support as a prominent Senator to the Soviets in an effort to aid his country's enemies.
Yup, good Democrat. Probably about the only way we could have gotten a worse President than Carter.(till now) If you can't beat ole Jimmy Carter, you really are a loser. I guess even the Democrats could see that much.
The crime is "false uttering of a document." But in the Animal Farm environment which Democrats have brought to us, Some animals (the pigs) are more equal than others.
There’s more to the issue of confidentiality than Obama having disclosed the contents of his BC.
When Fukino made an official statement on July 27, 2009 (prepared and reviewed by Hawaii’s AG) declaring that Obama was born in Hawaii and is an NBC, the documents she used to make that determination became subject to the UIPA (Hawaii open records law) at 92F-12(a)(15), which states in part that all “Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making” the July 27th statement to the public be disclosed.
Granted, the HRS (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 338-18 mandates that all records maintained by the DoH are confidential. So there is a conflict under the law. That’s where Obama’s explicit disclosure comes into consideration.
If someone were to challenge the HDoH on the conflict, it is possible that the court would rule against confidentiality given that the HDoH granted an exception for Obama in providing him a copy of his LFBC knowing that he intended to release it to the public to satisfy questions from the press.
(Note: The above is my summary of Leo Donofrio’s legal analysis from 2009. Leo is not responsible for any errors I may have made.)
If they do not give me a copy, then we can know that both you and your state are involved in some kind of cover-up to conceal the facts surrounding your birth.
Hey! I didn't know Right Wing Assault was running for President! Congratulations! I'll vote for you. Now you do understand that you have no right to privacy regarding your proof of eligibility? It is absolutely your duty to be forthcoming with legitimate proof that you are born to two American Parents, and if not in this country, in service of it. Make sure you don't let any IDIOT/MORON/DEMOCRAT/TROLL tell you that you have a right to keep secret your proof of Eligibility. It is a bedrock Law of the US Constitution.
Look forward to seeing your Birth Certificate in the Newspaper, unlike that current lying bastard (et al) who is STILL trying to prevent the truth from being known to the people of America.
But then Hawaii becomes an accessory to fraud, don't they?
If they know that Obama is passing off documents the he claims to be official Hawaii documents, and Hawaii knows this to be untrue, are you saying that they have a legal responsibility to stay quiet and let his fraud stand?
In other words, is Hawaii claiming Obama has a privacy right to commit fraud if he wishes to, and that it is not Hawaii's place to expose the fraud, citing privacy laws as the reason? Are you saying that Hawaii can allow the integrity of their legal documents to be destroyed, all in the name of protecting Obama's privacy?
-PJ
Your reply at One Hundred One began "It is a fact"
I heard that the HIPAA laws were created at the Urging of Bill Clinton who resented when people found out that he had HERPES. Monica is probably still getting sores in her mouth. Can't remember when so many of a President's friends were dropping over dead or going to prison. I guess that probably happens to a lot of Democrats, but it's so seldom that they get in a position where everyone gets a good look at their friends and associates to notice it.
Of course the country suffers for it, but it does make good entertainment.
However, the fact that Obama publicly released the LFBC and did so by requesting an exception from the Hawaii DoH with the obvious intent to publicly release the document it is a legitimate argument that his LFBC can no longer be considered confidential by Hawaii.
If they know that Obama is passing off documents the he claims to be official Hawaii documents, and Hawaii knows this to be untrue, are you saying that they have a legal responsibility to stay quiet and let his fraud stand?
In other words, is Hawaii claiming Obama has a privacy right to commit fraud if he wishes to, and that it is not Hawaii's place to expose the fraud, citing privacy laws as the reason? Are you saying that Hawaii can allow the integrity of their legal documents to be destroyed, all in the name of protecting Obama's privacy?
-PJ
I think I can answer your question more quickly by telling you I am adopted. I have an original birth certificate which is sealed, and I have an "official" birth certificate which is what the state "certifies" when I ask for a copy of my birth certificate. Needless to say, the "Official" "Certified" birth certificate does not contain the truth about my birth. The Sealed original does. The State is intentionally misleading people with my "official" birth certificate. This is a common practice in the case of adoptions and no one regards it as fraud or forgery or "conspiracy."
I should not be surprised if Hawaii is doing this exact thing regarding Obama's Birth certificate. I think he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and his original record sealed by judges order. (I also think his "original record" is a partially handwritten affidavit of "at home" birth.)
I think what has been released by Obama MIGHT be a Hawaiian reconstruction (per judge's order) of what would look like an Amended birth certificate for an Adopted Child.
Is Hawaii helping him cover it up? Yes! Is it legal? Yes! States routinely do this sort of stuff regarding the birth certificates of Adopted Children.
Just my take on one possible explanation.
And the difference between “however, the fact that” and “it is a fact that” is what?
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.