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

Skip to comments.

Hawaii claims Obama 'birth certificate' is 'confidential'Refuses subpoena...
World Net Daily ^ | 6/14/11 | Bob Unruh

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; birthers; breakingwind; certifigate; eligibility; hopespringseternal; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; thistimeforsure; trump; truthers; usurper; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 341-355 next last
To: DiogenesLamp
That sounds like a reasonable explanation. It isn't something to be ashamed about, so if it is the explanation, I don't understand why Obama has been so evasive about it.

And, I would also understand it in the case of an adoption where the child does not know either: 1) that (s)he is adopted, or 2) the birth parents (who may wish to remain unknown). None of that is the case with Obama. As an adult, there is no reason to seal his original birth document when all his parents are deceased, and he knows his lineage.

To me, that is the "reasonable person" test.

-PJ

181 posted on 06/15/2011 2:59:09 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, Mexican on Cinco de Mayo, and American on Election Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Red Steel

They were silent for a couple of days, I figured they were in a huddle figuring out their next tack. Now they’re back, notes in hand!


182 posted on 06/15/2011 3:02:45 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 166 | View Replies]

To: UnChained
Are you saying that Trump’s efforts were really a ruse to set the stage for the release of a bogus LFBC?

No. I don't go for conspiracies because they are so difficult to pull off because people generally can't keep a secret. All I'm saying is that Trump probably shot his mouth off about having people on the ground which hasn't panned out to be true. A simple lie/boast.

183 posted on 06/15/2011 3:04:23 PM PDT by frogjerk (Liberalism: The ideology of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

They list the names from adoptive children’s original birth certificates, and those birth certificates are no longer legally valid and are supposed to be sealed.

In the divorce record Charlotte Asing listed her child as Norman Asing, Jr (the file shows that he was later adopted by his step-dad and he now goes by his step-dad’s last name), but the index record showing his birth name leaves off the Jr, which suggests to me that the index listing isn’t just whatever names were on all the birth certificates they have; this index record has actually been altered from what was on the birth certificate, if what Charlotte said in her divorce file affidavit is correct.

I’ve looked around and found somebody who helps people try to find their birth parents, saying that sometimes (in the pre-computer days in files that were sent to libraries and thus couldn’t be updated for adoptions that went through after the original index list was distributed to the libraries) births were double-indexed (listed both the birth name and the adopted name) and a person could find out their birth name by cross-referencing the BC#, which was the same. In Hawaii the BC# and birth date used to be REQUIRED public index data; in such a case the publishing of sealed BC’s would automatically reveal an adoption. That strongly suggests that the indices were NOT meant to include sealed records.

And the format that the index lists are in (set number of entries on each page, with each individual page able to be taken out and replaced) make it so that names could be EXCHANGED without having to reprint the whole 5-year index when an adoption takes place, but to simply delete or add a name would require the whole thing to be reprinted. And on the same page where the Norman Asing birth name is listed, there is someone listed whose ADOPTIVE name is Asing. So we know that names are added to the index when an adoption takes place, and this would cause the whole thing to have to be reprinted every time an adoption takes place if they don’t at the same time also delete the birth name from the index.

The CDC’s recommended birth certificate has a “void flag” which notes whether the record is legally valid or not. Hawaii participates in the EVVE program, which requires there to be a “void flag” for birth records. I cannot imagine a public index list being especially formatted to include records with a void flag, and the original BC for an adopted child would almost certainly have a void flag on it, or else birth records for children who legally no longer exist could be used for identity fraud.

And it should also be noted that the HDOH is showing the public a different 1960-64 birth index than they showed TsunamiGeno in March of 2010, even though Mark Niesse pointed out that the volume has not seen much use. When I asked for a copy of a page taken from the actual 1960-64 birth index for public display in their office, they sent me something different than what they have on display in their office; what they sent me had the date header on it, unlike what is in their office. So they are monkeying around with that particular birth index. From what TsunamiGeno said, that birth index did not include Obama’s name in March of 2010.

There are also some anomalies that should be explained. They’ve got “Obado, Duplicate Mae” right above Obama’s name in the 1960-64 birth index - without showing any for just Mae Obado. And just having the same name or BC# isn’t enough to trigger the “Duplicate” flag. For other names they’ve got 2 records for what seems to be the same person, only one has a middle initial and the other spells out the middle name. One example of that is William A K Asing, and William Alexander Kaohelaulikaunaulu Asing.

I’ve posted on the 1960-64 birth index at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/hdoh-has-two-different-versions-of-1960-64-birth-index/ and http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/1960-64-birth-index-includes-legally-invalid-records/

Their 1960-65 MARRIAGE index also has anomalies. For instance, they’ve got Bienvenido Aspili and Uise Fualau marrying 3 different times.


184 posted on 06/15/2011 3:09:03 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: bvw

None. Your point being what, exactly?

You claimed I made an assertion about Hawaii records law in my original statement and that my assertion was delusional. I made no such assertion.

When proven wrong, you claimed that I should be more careful because any normal reader would make the same inference give my choice of words, to which I responded that you should take a reading comprehension class.

I’m finished playing “gotcha” games with you. I made no assertion about Hawaii records law in my original statement. The mistake in interpretation is yours.


185 posted on 06/15/2011 3:12:40 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Back when Trump was talking about it, Farah was bragging about advising him almost daily. That's where the Donald was getting his birther info. His “investigators” were WND.
186 posted on 06/15/2011 3:16:44 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

No, you made an assumption that Obama is truthful about the Hawaiian records law. You drew a conclusion from his claim that he needed an exemption. You can not draw good conclusions from what a liar says. A known predisposition to lie impeaches everything a liar says.

He did not need an exemption! They were his own records.


187 posted on 06/15/2011 3:21:08 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
One thing that bothers me about Obama's long form birth certificate that Obama released on April 27, 2011 is this: How can Hawaii registrar Onaka now say that he is forbidden by Hawaii privacy laws to allow reporters to examine Obama's original birth certificate that is in the archives, when Obama has already VOLUNTARILY released his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011? Doesn't the phrase "in the public domain" take over here?

1. April 27, 2011, Obama releases his long form birth certificate to great fanfare at a White House press conference.

2. HAWAII REGISTRAR ONAKA: But now when reporters ask Hawaii official Onaka to allow them to examine the original birth certificate in the Hawaii archives, Onaka---as I understand it---declares that he cannot do so because of privacy laws.

3. Huh? I thought that when Obama VOLUNTARILY released his long form on April 27, 2011, the long form birth certificate became part of the public domain, that is, I thought that Obama gave up his right to hide behind privacy laws when he VOLUNTARILY released his long form himself on April 27, 2011.

4. Again, how in the world can Onaka---whose name is stamped on Obama's long form birth certificate---on the one hand, claim that privacy laws forbid him from allowing reporters to examine Obama's original long form birth certificate in the Hawaii archives, when, on the other hand, Obama has already VOLUNTARILY released his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011?

5. It makes no sense to me.

6. To me, it seems that Hawaii officials and Obama are trying to hide something damaging to Obama that is on the long form in the Hawaii archives but is not on the long form birth certificate that Obama released to the public on April 27, 2011.

7. PRESIDENT OBAMA RESPONSIBLE FOR ONAKA'S STONEWALLING? Why doesn't President Obama simply tell Onaka to allow reporters to examine his original long form birth certificate in the HAWAII archives that should have the same EXACT information that is on the copy that President Obama released on April 27, 2011 to great fanfare at a White House press conference?

8. I think that Registrar Onaka and Obama are hiding something.

9. I wish that reporters and the public would put continuous pressure on President Obama during this 2012 presidential campaign to allow them to look at his original long form birth certificate in the Hawaii archives, because if Obama refuses to allow reporters to examine the original long form that is in the Hawaii archives, then I can only conclude that President Obama is trying to hide something.

10. And with every day that goes by without President Obama allowing reporters to examine his original long form birth certificate in the Hawaii archives, I say that President Obama loses more votes on election day Nov. 2012.

188 posted on 06/15/2011 3:30:06 PM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Thanks for the history lesson. Interesting.


189 posted on 06/15/2011 3:30:57 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

This explanation doesn’t hold much water. Nagamine responded with an objection to the subpoena under the rule 45. There would be no need to object to an invalid subpoena. She didn’t object that the subpoena was invalid. She said it wasn’t served properly (without explaining how) and based her objection on a separate issue, claiming, “These subpoenas would require disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, and there is no exception that applies to allow disclosure to you ...” Hawaiian law DOES allow disclosure to someone with a legal court order, so Taitz actually fits the direct and tangible interest rule.


190 posted on 06/15/2011 3:31:19 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Hawaiian law DOES allow disclosure to someone with a legal court order, so Taitz actually fits the direct and tangible interest rule.

Hope so. And, so does every American! It's been a cover-up from the start.

191 posted on 06/15/2011 3:37:18 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

The law in Hawaii allows the HDOH to release a birth certificate to somebody who has an order from the court saying they are authorized to have access.

And Hawaii’s UIPA law says that once a public disclosure has been made BY THE HDOH (as in Fukino’s July 2009 press release saying Obama’s BC claims he was born in Hawaii) the record on which that statement was based becomes a PUBLIC RECORD and EVERY PERSON is entitled to see it upon request. At this point the HDOH is actually required to give anybody who asks for it a copy of Obama’s BC, with non-disclosable items redacted. And once the registrant has published the INFORMATION from the record, none of the items on the record have a legal reason to be exempt from disclosure.

I believe I’ve already explained this to you once on this thread. If you don’t get what I’m saying, please let me know what you don’t understand so we can get this cleared up. Fukino’s public statement in July of 2009 made Obama’s BC a public record which can be requested under UIPA. To fulfill the letter of the law a person would only have to get a judge to issue a court order requiring the release of the record because of UIPA, and then item 9 of HRS 338-18(b) would authorize the release of the BC.

Orly has gotten permission for discovery from the judge, which includes the right to subpoena records. Nagamine can claim Taitz screwed up the procedures if she wants to, in which case it’s just a matter of Taitz dotting her i’s and crossing her t’s. If the HDOH and Nagamine still refuse to disclose all the requested records when all the hoops have been jumped through, they are in contempt of court.

You asked me why they would risk jail time to cover for Obama. If they refuse to disclose records even with a proper subpoena issued for them, the whole world sees openly that they ARE risking jail time to hide Obama’s records. And that definitely raises the question of why. Perhaps they know that their only way of avoiding jail time is to try to make the issue go away, because they’ve ALREADY committed crimes. Maybe they know that if even any tiny tidbit of evidence makes it into a court they will be dead meat anyway so there’s no reason to NOT commit even more crimes to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Or what reason do you give for them defying a subpoena? Just like the Obama administration has been defying subpoenas all along, on every issue.

Obama’s own release of his BC means that none of the information on that BC is exempt from disclosure because of privacy concerns - unless what he posted publicly is different than what they have in their office.

IOW, if Nagamine really wants to claim that Obama still has a “privacy interest” in anything on his genuine BC, then she is admitting that what Obama posted is not what they have on the genuine document. In which case, she has a responsibility to report Obama’s forgery to law enforcement, or herself be guilty of misprision of the felonies of AT LEAST forgery and perjury.

They are running out of room for waffling. Taitz has the law and the judge’s decision on her side; they cannot get out of this. They will be exposed.


192 posted on 06/15/2011 3:40:06 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I suggest you read the FRCP.


193 posted on 06/15/2011 3:43:37 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: bovril1a
I'll make it easy for you...

You said: "If someone steals a persons SSN or patient records and publishes them on the Internet, do they miraculously become legally free to use by someone else.....? Same with LFBC"

How do you equate identity theft with someone voluntarily releasing their private information?

Furthermore, following your idiotic analogy that ... "If someone steals a persons SSN or patient records and publishes them on the Internet, do they miraculously become legally free to use by someone else" since you stated identify theft and Barry's voluntarily releasing his (alleged) LFBC are the "Same"...are you saying that Taitz is wanting to use Barry's LFBC somehow?

Just what in the world are you trying to say with that ridiculous analogy: Identity theft is the same as a voluntary release of info.

We're awaiting your sagy pearls of wisdom.

194 posted on 06/15/2011 3:44:16 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Hawaiian law DOES allow disclosure to someone with a legal court order, so Taitz actually fits the direct and tangible interest rule.

Taitz doesn't have a legal court order.

195 posted on 06/15/2011 3:45:41 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

The Federal General False Statement Act.

Obama had a responsibility to tell the world if the BC he posted was “just a joke”. By presenting it as if it was real he violated the Federal General False Statement Act - the same law that Rod Blagojevich was found guilty of violating.

Obama’s lawyers have already asked Judge Carter to take judicial notice of the Factcheck report on his BC - which they all knew was false because that seal could not have been on that paper when it was photographed. I’ve shown that at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/did-factcheck-help-forge-the-colb/ . IOW, they all knew that the seal was added after the photo was taken, and that Factcheck deliberately lied - and was used as a source by nearly every Congress-critter confronted about Obama’s eligibility. And that report, which was known by all to be fraudulent, was cited in a court case by Obama’s lawyers. Presenting in court what you know to be fraudulent is perjury. Both Obama and his lawyers are guilty of that.


196 posted on 06/15/2011 3:49:23 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: bovril1a
You said: "If someone steals a persons SSN or patient records"

Are those not examples of identify theft? Why...yes they are. SSN and patient records both identify someone and since they were stolen...that's theft.

That's pray tell where.

197 posted on 06/15/2011 3:49:31 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Orly has gotten permission for discovery from the judge, which includes the right to subpoena records.

No, she hasn't. She assumes that she can subpoena records because she filed a lawsuit in Lamberth's court. She's not an officer of his court if she's not a member of the bar of his court. The FRCP and the local rules of Lamberth's court dictate who can issue a valid subpoena and when and how it must be served.

198 posted on 06/15/2011 3:51:18 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: bvw

No, you assumed that I made an assumption. You were wrong. Now, grow up and stop playing games.


199 posted on 06/15/2011 3:53:28 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

But does HIPAA have a provision saying that if a hospital has already made a public statement, the records on which they based the statement become public records?

Fukino royally screwed up when she made the July 2009 statement that Obama’s BC claims a Hawaii birth. If the records were required to be confidential then she broke confidentiality by giving that statement. Once she did that, the record became public. Redactions could be made so that no more was revealed than what she had already revealed, because of the privacy concerns that could make some information exempt from disclosure. But the privacy exemption for a public record is waived if the registrant has already published the information in question - which Obama claims to have done for his BC.

If Fukino had not made that statement the comparison with HIPAA would be valid. But Fukino already screwed it up; now the record is REQUIRED BY LAW to be public.


200 posted on 06/15/2011 3:56:19 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 341-355 next 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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