Terri K asked to be given copies of receipts and invoices for Obama to amend his birth certificate. The Department of Health is required to say, for each item requested, if they don’t have what is requested. If they have it they can either release it or deny the person access. They can only deny access to something they actually have.
The DOH denied Terri K access to everything she asked for, which is a statutory admission that everything she asked for exists. Somebody paid a fee to amend Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
The first time that a fee for an amendment is mentioned is in the 1976 revision of the Administrative Rules, so the amendment was most likely made after that time.
Any amendment made to a certificate after a 90-day window after birth must be marked as amended on the face of the certificate. What Obama posted, the Certification of Live Birth, is referred to in the Administrative Rules as an “Abbreviated Birth Certificate”. If there was an amendment any certificate (either standard or abbreviated) has to have note of that amendment.
Neither Factcheck nor Fight the Smears has note of an amendment. Those images could not have come from the Hawaii Department of Health, and the DOH would have known that as soon as they looked at any of Obama’s records.
None of us could have recognized the significance of their admission to Terri K without seeing the Administrative Rules - which is why the DOH has fought hand and foot to keep from having to release those rules - which were supposed to have been public all along.
There is much, much more documentaton that could be given for every one of my points. Before I invested too much time in documenting this I needed to know that someone would be willing to publish it to the general public. If someone steps forward I will write up more complete documentation, complete with the legal ins and outs.
But if a person understands the parameters for the DOH’s legal responses, they recognize that their refusal to release those documents was HUGE. If people can see that bare statement of fact and poo-pooh it then it would be a waste of my time to do more documenting. That’s what this article was supposed to find out - if we’re beyond caring about this issue.
That said, if you believe there is an argument here, you should write it up and expand upon it.
Post it on that site where you have this other stuff, or post it here.
When someone is digging a hole and get’s themselves into trouble, it’s time to stop digging and come clean.
Butterdezillion, thanks for posting.
Any clues folks on why the FOIA request by Strunk to the U.S. State Dept. revealed no records found for passport usage by Stanley Ann Dunham prior to 1982?