Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Nancy Pelosi signed one certificate of nomination which was sent to 49 states and another - saying that Obama is Constitutionally eligible - to Hawaii. People have asked why she didn't send the eligibility-certifying one to all the states, but the more pressing question is, "Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama's eligibility?"
This is on my blog but I'll post the whole thing in the first response and the link to the blog post in the 2nd response so the links will be (hopefully) clickable.
The AG’s office contradicted Okubo regarding whether they were consulted on Fukino’s statements.
OIP Opinion Letters and UIPA make it clear that once information has been disclosed (published) it is no longer confidential, and once a department has “informed the public” the created and maintained documents used to inform the public become public themselves.
Buckeye Texan has this one exactly right. Hawaii is violating its own laws, and they know it.
A “refusal to corroborate” is a reporter’s spin on a statement of “no comment.”
It was Janice Okubo who told WorldNetDaily that Dr. Fukino’s two media releases were run through the AG’s office which is pretty standard fare for media statements by agency heads.
http://24ahead.com/hi-ag-mark-bennett-reviewed-and-approved-fukino-727-statemen
If Hawaii is “violating their own laws” they can be challenged. Where’s the challenge?
I’m not interested in taking the word for anything of someone who thinks that Grand Juries have been eliminated by “the government.”
What is the motivation for a Republican administration in Hawaii to be assisting a liberal Democrat President?
Governor Lingle gave an endorsement speech for Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention.
I’ve got the scans up at my blog now. The computer was changed at my husband’s office and he still had to install the driver for the scanner, only to find that our scanner doesn’t work with the new system. So when he finally made it home with the docs I had my son scan them for me on his printer so I could upload them.
Hopefully it will make more sense when all the documents can be viewed. Sorry for the delay.
Yes. I believe both JB Phillips at CFP and jbjd who did the original research for this actually requested people to do that, so it could be learned exactly which states other than Hawaii, if any, received the altered DNC cert. I don’t know how many they looked at, but maybe contacting either one of those would reveal which ones are still needed.
I asked for Nebraska’s. All this state requires is a document from the DNC saying who their candidate is, and that’s all we got - the standard cert without eligibility language.
I’ll find the relevant UIPA laws and OIP legal opinions and post them for you to review. Obama released his private information to the public intentionally, not inadvertantly.
The HDoH can release copies of vital records to the general public if the individual or his/her representative authorizes that release. A relevant OIP opinion letter establised that publicly disclosing one’s own information inherently provides such an authorization.
Yes, the Hawaii AG disagrees with the OIP’s interpretation of the relevant UIPA law. That’s why they refuse to release copies. A resident of Hawaii could bring a lawsuit to enforce the law just as citizens regularly file lawsuits to compel the release of documents that should be released under FOIA but are denied.
An official declaration from a governing authority that Obama is a natural born citizen is not an inadvertant disclosure of private data. That statement created a right to examine the information considered by the authority in making the determination. The relevant OIP opinions agree.
If anybody really, truly wants to see Obama’s long form, vault copy birth certificate, just have legitimate cause for examination, go to a judge and get a subpoena. With a subpoena, the release happens WITHOUT Obama’s permission.
Any birth document released under any other circumstance will be a certified copy of the COLB.
However there is no additional information on a Hawaii long form that is relevant to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The Constitution requires place of birth and date of birth plus 14 years residence in the US. A certified copy of the Certification of Live Birth meets those requirements (except for documenting 14 years of residence in the US).
I hope. =)
How about deniability? 0b0z0 is trying to stage a Reichstag Fire, which is deniable by definition.
So, Abu Bama comments in opposition to burning the Quran tells you: "I was against it," however, he doesn't tell you: the dem operative pastor was told to start it and therefore, I'm for it!
A reverse Kerry if you will!
Hey Butter,
Sorry for ruining your calm. I put my foot in my mouth and twisted it! LOL!
I’m not sure what you mean by changing her definition. Fukino has made two public statements and neither violated 338-18 because she has the statutory authority to authorize whatever information she wants to release. How else would you interpret part d??
Hope and CHANGE.
DO you happen to have the comment that Justice Thomas made about the BC? That’s been on my mind lately.
Janice Okubo also told both Mark Niesse of the AP and myself in a UIPA response that they can print the 1961 birth index. Now they’re saying something else.
She told Niesse that they hadn’t received any money yet; my money order was sitting in their office at the beginning of that work day.
She told Niesse that they were asking the AG whether they could be allowed to not offer the 1961 birth index. When I requested to see the communications to and from the HDOH regarding whether the 1961 birth index must be disclosed I was told there were no records responsive to my request.
Okubo is a liar. I just don’t know any better way to say it.
And Lingle and Fukino can’t get their stories straight. If those two were considered witnesses they would both be suspect because their stories don’t line up - documentably don’t line up. They can’t agree on whether Obama’s records were treated differently, who initiated the peek at Obama’s records, or what Fukino actually said about Obama’s birth. IOW, their testimonies contradict each other on almost every point.
I’ve already stated many times why there aren’t lawsuits in Hawaii. If you were dealing with these people you would know the money would be wasted because the laws are being blatantly violated while the Ombudsman and OIP look on with their fingers in their ears.
I said that I didn’t know much about it and invited anybody to correct me, but that it seemed like nobody was paying attention to grand juries - a point which El Sordo said is pretty standard. If you’re going to throw rocks at me because of the way I handled that, then I guess you’re a little too fragile for me to be real with.
I also have stated that I believe the motivation for a Republican governor to cooperate with a liberal president is sticks and carrots - and Obama has offered a LOT of carrots to Hawaii. Someone from Hawaii corrected me on a comment I had made that the Hawaiian sovereignty bill that Obama pledged to sign being the wish of everybody in Hawaii; I had thought it was because nearly all of the leaders in Lingle’s government have signed a petition in support of Hawaiian sovereignty.
I think most people have figured out that the D and R labels don’t always make a lot of difference. It’s been a tough lesson for a lot of us to learn, but it seems like you were playing hooky that day because it hasn’t sunk in that just because somebody has an R behind their name, it doesn’t mean that they are above being bought or bowing to political pressure, especially in a really corrupt place.
I think the person Hawaiians should be looking at with potential hope may be Lt Gov Duke Aiona. I can’t know for sure, but I think he may have been the person who forced the HDOH to post their administrative rules online as required by law - a tremendous act of courage, given that those rules revealed MASSIVE corruption on the part of Fukino. He may be the only guy in Hawaii’s government who has a pair.
A legal copy of the COLB has never been released to the public. That’s why a long-form would be valuable and necessary to corroborate Obama’s claim of constitutional eligibility.
lol. Nah, this isn’t bad.
My understanding of part d is that Fukino can say what is included in the index lists. By law she HAS to include the name and gender, but she can also authorize other things to be included in the index lists. In the past, for instance, certificate numbers and event dates were required to be released. Those are no longer required but Fukino could authorize those to be released.
I can’t tell you how many times the HDOH has told me that the only index data that Fukino has authorized for release is name, type of event, and gender.
If that’s all she’s authorized as index data, then any other disclosures she would make from the certificates themselves (such as place of birth) could not be justified by part d so according to 338-18a they would have to be authorized by either the Administrative Rules or other portions of 338-18. The Administrative Rules only authorize disclosure of actual DOCUMENTS, except the index data and notices to the newspapers. And none of the other parts of 338-18 authorize disclosures of information from the actual certificates to the general public.
What else do you think is on the index lists?? There certainly has to be more than just name, gender, type of event, date and certificate number, else the original law wouldn't say 'and other data.' Either the lists contained much more data or it's talking about all the data contained in a vital record, not just on the index list. Otherwise, there's no point in the law including a clause to give the director authority to release other data. Besides, we've seen birth announcements, so we know the state at one time or another would have authorized the release of a parent's names and address in addition to the other default index data. And how would 'other portions of 338-18' NOT include part D and index data??
Thanks for the ping!
THey claim they don’t have any index lists from before the system was computerized. So all they have for index lists now is the computer files, and the index list includes whatever Fukino tells the computer to print out. All she has them print out is the title of the index (birth, marriage, or death) and the list of names and genders. That’s all it is.
They’re claiming now that they only collect the data in 5-year increments so they can only release 5-year index lists but in reality they can print out whatever they want. They just refuse to print out the year. BUT Okubo will (allegedly) tell Mark Niesse from the AP that they have Obama’s name in their 1961 birth index (the index they said they don’t have because they only have 5-year indices...)
That example, right there, is a microcosm of how Fukino does everything. They won’t release the official documents they are required to release because (supposedly) they can’t narrow the index data down to a specific year. But Okubo can tell the AP an individual’s (alleged) record down to a specific year. They can’t give index data down to a year but they can make a random disclosure down to a year.
See, they don’t treat these disclosures as if they were index data, because they can do stuff with these random disclosures that they adamantly refuse to do with index data. They won’t show a birth index list for 1961 having Obama’s name on it, but they will make an announcement that Obama is on the 1961 birth index list. If they can do the one, why can’t they do the other? Either the birth year is index data or it’s not. If it’s not index data, then by what authority does Okubo tell Niesse Obama is in the 1961 birth index?
Regarding the parents’ addresses, the HDOH could only release that after the rules were changed to authorize that in 1976, and they have to have the parents’ consent before publishing that. I should look and see whether the announcements that are from the HDOH now include parents’ and child’s names and the birth date. OIP Opinion Letters consider the birth date to be confidential unless included in documents that are required to be made public.
** Late PING!
As always, unbelievably extensive research, butter!
KUDOS! Keep going !
That was freaky .. I’m sure it was discovered by
others, but when I found it in July of last year,
I was completely confounded .. and that continues to
this day.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2304218/posts?page=173#173
I know EXACTLY how you feel. This reminds me of those detective shows where the detective asks someone to try to remember even the most insignificant detail. Then the seemingly "insignificant detail" is what clinches the case. Unfortunately, I never thought we'd all be watching this crime happen.
Right that's evidently how they treat requests connected to Obama from the public at large, but the law is pretty clear that the director has the authority to release more data than that, and once she releases such data, then legally, it's not confidential information any longer. They just pick and choose which parts of the law they want to cite in order to hide information or justify whatever information that may have been released, which obviously isn't much. And the existance of the birth announcements would mean that they can't claim confidentiality on verifying that particular set of information.
If it’s not index data, then by what authority does Okubo tell Niesse Obama is in the 1961 birth index?
First, I don't you can assume that spokesbabe Okubo is necessarily acting under any specific authority. She might be; she might not be. She says a lot of stuff that is reckless and intentionally misleading. After all, she did originally say Obama's alleged COLB was real, that there were no problems with it, and that it was requested by a valid requestor in June 2008 ... a lot of things she shouldn't have had the authority to say at the time. Second, she said Obama's alleged COLB was real because it looked like her own. Whatever rationale she has for saying Obama's index data is in the 1961 birth index may be because she's going by the public record of Obama's birth and doesn't really know whether it's in the index list, or Fukino authorized her to say which year such index data would be in ... which would be statutorily acceptable. 388-18(d) doesn't prescribe when and to whom disclosure can be made and/or when they can confirm OTHER index data, nor does it say that all disclosures would have to be consistent and equal to all requestors.
Regarding the parents’ addresses, the HDOH could only release that after the rules were changed to authorize that in 1976, and they have to have the parents’ consent before publishing that.
I'd have to see the rules on this. The publication of birth announcements is a pretty broad, standard practice. There may not have been formal rules prior to 1976, so I don't think you can assume the DOH would have been legally unable to provide lists to the newspapers. Our best available evidence says otherwise. Also, once the birth announcement has been published WITH a date of birth, then it would be hard for the OIP to claim confidentiality AFTER the fact.
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.