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.
Wow! A direct quote? Never seen it before. Now why isn't that plastered all over birtherdom? It's an official recognition of the online COLB, which seemingly refutes the forgery accusations. Very interesting indeed.
I can’t blame you for not trusting the anonymous person on the internet. But in this case, you are free and welcome to email Okubo, Fukino and Joesting yourself and ask if they denied my request in it’s entirety citing HRS 338-18 as I detailed to you earlier, late last summer.
(chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov; Janice.S.Okubo@hawaii.gov; oip@hawaii.gov [ATTN: Linden Joesting])
I personally think that Lakin could EASILY show he has a ‘tangible interest’ in obtaining Obama’s BC.
If he has not filed his own UIPA request, citing the chain of command. He should give it a try and file the automatic court appeal if they deny that request. Everyone who gets denied records under UIPA can immediately take it to court where a judge would automatically view Obama’s vital records in camera (behind closed doors.) At the very least, we know for certain that at least one judge will have laid eyes on it. And Lakin will have been in front of a judge that will know if Obama is qualified or not to ask Lakin to deploy.
Sometimes, I think these lawyers are leading their military clients away from trying this free, simple easy path that is at least a guarantee to be heard in courts if denied.
BTW, I once asked the OIP if Orly had ever filed a UIPA request. They said, no.
BDZ—
The military should be requesting his records directly. If you have any way to speak with his attorneys you should pass it on. Better yet, Lakin should just request without even going through his lawyers.
Surely the military at make an excellent case for ‘tangible interest’ when being asked to deploy.
***READ THIS PORTION FROM THE FULL TEXT OF THE PRECEDENT RULING THAT DEFINED HAWAII’S ‘TANGIBLE INTEREST’:
“Those who don’t stand in the relationship to the registrant required by section 338-18(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, may inspect a particular vital statistic record if the DOH is satisfied that the information is “necessary for the determination of personal or property rights.”
My God, why does it appear that no deploying military have filed a UIPA request?
yeah and hawaii’s own statute says they can’t verify or disclose..then how did Lingle say Obie was born in Kapiolani, and since they can’t verify they haven’t actually verified anything..right? Notice how they put “requests” in their statment, what purpose does that serve?
....State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.......
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
First, the receipt for payment for a copy of a vital record, I was told is not maintained nor part of the vital record.
“However, according to butterdezillion’s research, the state will not reveal the legal status of a BC because it’s a “protected disclosure.” So they cannot tell you if Obama does or does not have an amended BC.”
I didn’t request his amended birth certificate. I requested his UIPA request to access his own record and there was NO precedent for that. Until I got a ruling on appeal, UIPA requests were subject to disclosure. The idea that they are now part of a vital records was invented with my request.
However, what you are referring to is called the glomar response. It goes like this: “access to records you requested, if any, is denied.” This is another response I have received several times.
They did not use the glomar response for this particular request and when I asked for confirmation I was told my request for copies was “denied in it’s entirety.”
Question my understanding all you want, that’s totally fine with me. However, I have had seven confirmations before and after the filing of my UIPA request that the DOH had to tell me if the records existed. Joesting told me herself twice, BEFORE I even filed it, long before she found herself ruling on the appeal.
At this point, I have satisfied myself and that’s the best I can do.
You're focusing entirely on the definition of "verify" that means "to affirm by formal oath" while excluding the definition that means "to substantiate. To affirm means to state solemnly. To substantiate means to support with evidence. There's a big difference, butter.
You're speculating that Fukino meant "affirm" rather than "substantiate." If you replace the word "verifies" in her statement with the word "substantiates," you'll realize what she intended. She wasn't saying that Obama's vital records "claim" or "swear" that he was born in Hawaii. She was saying they "substantiate" that he was born in Hawaii.
Vital records are official, legal records of a governing authority. The information on them serves as evidence of the facts contained therein. (Prima facie) If Obama's COLB were merely an unapproved draft, it wouldn't contain a statement indicating that it serves as prima facie evidence or have the official seal of Hawaii on it. (IMHO)
I meant to also add that according to UIPA, agency heads are not allowed to consider a requester’s reason for making a records request when deliberating a ruling.
In other words, Fukino could not simply reason out that I just wanted to know IF he amended his BC and sought verification by asking for copies the invoice, receipt and request to access his own records.
Fukino was required to rule as if I could have been told by Obama himself that he did request to amend and saw the process through to payment.
Fukino never said the records verified a thing before Congress passed their resolution declaring Obama born in Hawaii on Aug. 4 1961.
In fact, that was the EXACT same day she said the records verify his birth in Hawaii...
Worth noting anyway.
Obama has publicly said that he was born at Kapiolani and he wrote a letter for the hospital, which they posted on their website. His public statement and letter legally release the state from their duty to protect that information as confidential.
Yeah right so then HDOH can verify everything on Obamas COLB including whether it is bonafide or not? And then since they can release hospital why dont they show his long form redacted to everything he has not released?
Come on now Buckeye you disappoint me....
Yes, I’m familiar with the glomar. IIRC, when you started down this path, Okubo wasn’t following proper procedure. It seemed like she didn’t understand the formality of a UIPA request, so I don’t put very much weight into the fact that she didn’t use the glomar in that instance.
I realize you believe that Obama has an amended BC and I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. My comments about the amended BC are mainly to provide another perspective to those reading this thread. I won’t change butter’s mind either.
Yes, they CAN release everything on Obama’s COLB because HE did. I’ve already made that argument on this thread. (And butterdezillion agrees.) They’re refusing to do so.
Apparently, Fukino has acknowledged that Obama’s online COLB is legitimate, which was news to me. Look up thread. jamese777 posted a direct quote from Fukino when she testified regarding the vexatious requestor law. She made direct reference to the fact that Obama had posted a copy of his BC on his campaign website. Fukino represent the official state agency that maintains vital records. So to me, that says the State of Hawaii confirms that what he posted is legitimate.
I not only agree with you, but IMO, I believe the Hawaii DOH does as well.
I believe people have cited this very thing when requesting a copy of the COL online as well.
But because what’s online and what the Kapiolani letter say do/DID not agree with what the vital records they released would say, they cannot disclose the info on birth place.
I am curious what a request for that info would yield now that I believe congress signed off on his birth facts last summer.
Amen, brother. I am totally with you on that one.
Why can’t it be both?
If they’ve been doing this crap for others why is it considered so radical to suggest that they also did it for Obama?
I have tried to get somebody to require subpoenas. Nobody who has subpoena power will take it up. That’s not something that peons like me can just do on our own. And that is why we are in the mess we’re in. Our law enforcement system is a joke.
We should know that just by watching the DOJ suing Arizona so the feds can be the only people who CAN enforce the laws (but never will) and reporting Arizona to the UN for heaven’s sake.
It’s all part and parcel of the same thing. When there’s a communist coup the first thing they do is seize control of the critical infrastructure - the systems necessary for the maintenance of a free society. One of the top things is law enforcement.
That’s why, when I look at what’s going on, I don’t see anything that conservatives should be crawling away from. I see critical infrastructure being seized while “conservatives” are too embarrassed to scream “rape!” This is no time for embarrassment. This is time for a fortified wall against anybody who would try to take this nation’s infrastructure.
The HDOH is totally convoluting the definitions. Look at the definition of “public health statistics” set forth at the beginning of HRS 338 at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm . Then realize that when Miss Tickly asked Okubo what was meant by “vital records” Okubo sent back a Wikipedia definition saying that vital records are birth, marriage, and death certificates.
The certificates and attached documentation are the vital records. They are governed by HRS 338-18a. The PROCESSING records are “public health statistics records”, which are governed by 338-18b - which disallows CERTIFIED COPIES and direct viewing only.
Both Linden Joesting and the HDOH knew that the existence of processing records is not confidential. Joesting noted that the HDOH needed to say if the records did not exist. And the HDOH would have used a Glomarized response if they had been trying to claim that they have to hide even the existence of the amendment processing records. They didn’t use a Glomarized response.
Their convulation of “vital records” with “public health statistics” came after the horse had left the shed. It was AFTER Donofrio published the information about the amendment being confirmed that the HDOH started their revolving-door rationalizing of why they couldn’t do anything.
Their claim that the legal status of a record is protected from disclosure was toward the end of that revolving door. And if you think it through, that would mean that they would have to say the same thing for a piece of toilet paper with a name scratched on it that’s sitting in their “pending” file as they would say for a legally-valid BC. Now think about it. When Fukino said they have Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.... which is it - a legally-valid BC, or a piece of toilet paper sitting in a pending file?
If you take their rationale, then nothing they have said means ANYTHING, because they can’t reveal ANYTHING about whether what they have is a piece of junk or actually legally worth something.
If you believe what they say about that, then the ONLY way to know anything about what Hawaii has is by looking at the actual certificate.
And actually, that’s what HRS 338-18a says, as I understand it: that if anything is going to be revealed from a birth certificate it should be revealed through the lawful disclosure of the document itself - a document which is required to have notes of anything that affects the legal status of the certificate. Disclosures of what is on a birth certificate are not to be made without the legal status of the record being known.
Fukino is doing it all backwards; she’s saying she can reveal whatever she wants but CANNOT REVEAL the legal status. That is absolute craziness. The only reason anything on a BC even matters is if it is a legally-valid document. If it’s just a piece of garbage who cares what is on it?
When Fukino made the announcement saying they have Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures, do you really think she meant everybody to believe that she couldn’t comment on whether they have anything legally-valid for Obama? Why didn’t she say publicly what her staff told me in their responses to my UIPA requests - that the legal status of certificates is a highly-kept secret that they can’t reveal to anybody?
Regarding speculation - what other option do we have, when the HDOH has no records of their rules and their own definitions, procedures, and explanations change as often as Liz Taylor changes husbands? If a witness in court tried changing their story as often as the HDOH changes theirs and contradicts everything they or the rules say, they would be jailed for contempt of court.
A vital record that is deficient doesn’t substantiate anything.
It seems like you’re missing my point, which is that Fukino was not making any claim of her own; she is merely citing the vital records - which don’t mean a thing if they are legally deficient, which they are - not only because his BC is amended but because it was late. Obama’s name was not in the 1960-64 birth index when a researcher checked and re-checked mutliple times in March.
What they claim (verbally but not in writing on the document itself) is the 1960-64 birth index in the HDOH office for public display now DOES have Obama’s name in it, so we know it was changed between then and now, which should be problematic since any change made in March of 2010 should not show up as though it was legitimately in the 1960-64 index.
It also has note of a duplicate record even though there is no record visible that it duplicated. That’s the name DIRECTLY ABOVE Obama’s in the altered birth index.
Today I read an article where the author cited experts talking about why the “birther” issue doesn’t die. One expert talked about “evidence to the contrary is evidence of a conspiracy” but nowhere did anybody in the article say what “evidence to the contrary” had ever been presented. The only thing that came close was a quote from Factcheck. Everything that author gave was a citation of somebody else. He made no claims of his own. That meant that I could not correct him, because it was not he who was making the inaccurate claims; it was Factcheck.
That is exactly what Fukino did: she cited vital records which have no legal value. Garbage in, garbage out. Her claim is only as good as the source she cited - and her office claims that a total BS legally-deficient document has to be publicly handled just as if it was pure as the newly-fallen snow.
Her statement means nothing - according to her own claim that the legal status of a vital record must be kept confidential.
But Lingle’s claim was that Fukino had mentioned Kapiolani in her July 2009 statement. She also said that she had told Fukino to look at the BC, whereas Fukino said neither Lingle nor anybody else had told her to treat Obama’s BC any differently than anybody else’s.
Just about every detail in those 2 ladies’ statements were contradictory. And yet people are still considering either one credible? They’re not accurate on the things we can check out from public statements, so why should we expect them to be any more accurate on anything else?
Even after they realized the full significance of everything that had been said, when Miss Tickly asked for clarification they gave the same answer. MT asked which of the items she had requested were specifically denied in that request and she was told “All of them”.
They have been consistent on that request from Day One - even after they knew the significance and when MT gave them every chance to back down and say they had made a mistake. They never backed down from it.
What you’re saying just doesn’t match the reality of what MT has experienced, nor of what I have experienced.
These people change their stories with every breath of wind. Take, for instance, their responses to me regarding the handwritten birth index for 1961. They were getting static from me because they said it doesn’t exist but I had already ascertained that it existed in 1980, when it was required to be retained permanently and found from the archivist that the HDOH should have it.
So when the heat was on they said they didn’t have the handwritten 1961 index but they could give me the computer-generated one if I asked for it and paid $98.75. Then when I asked and paid, they told me 7 days after I actually made a request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index that they were returning my money because I hadn’t completed all my obligations within 20 days of making my request.
Did you catch that? Seven days after they received my request they told me I had missed a 20-day deadline for doing everything necessary to get my request filled.
On the 4th day after my request and money order were in their office an AP article was published saying that they had not received any money for a 1961 birth index request and were asking the AG for a ruling on whether they would have to still make the 1961 birth index available.
Now they are claiming that they can’t release a 1961 birth index because they only collect birth data in increments of 5 years at a time. I’ve asked to see the documents showing what changed within about a week’s time, that they could release that information until somebody actually asked for it and then all of a sudden they couldn’t do it any more.
Do you see how they are constantly changing the goal lines? I have been dealing with this crap for almost a year now. This Charlie Brown is so sick of Lucy holding the football to pull it away whenever she wants, and people giving her a pass because, after all, she’s the one holding the football.
These people have been making up the rules as they go. Literally flying by the seat of their pants, and they know we all know it too. They dare us to sue them, knowing there’s no judge in Hawaii that’s going to buck Obama.
BUT on MT’s request they have been given every possible chance to change their answer, and they don’t.
How could Fukino confirm that what he was posted was legitimate? Given everything they’ve said, how could she do it? She can’t even tell us whether what they have in their office is TP with a name scratched on it, and yet she’s publicly testifying that Obama posted a genuine COLB online (and this after her office has confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery)?
See, when she does stuff like this it is so obviously spinning and dancing and pulling crap out of her rear end. Everything she says contradicts everything else she has said. How can you give ANYTHING SHE SAYS any credibility when none of it agrees with itself? It’s a sure sign of a con artist. Don’t you see that?
And BTW, Fukino also gave in that same testimony the claim that 50 people/month were specifically asking for Obama’s birth certificate. There were not even that many requests for EVERYTHING, and only a tiny, tiny percentage of the requests received were for Obama’s birth certificate at all. She documentably perjured herself right there, so we know she has NO QUALMS about perjuring herself, even when it is easily documentable that she did so. She knows her pals in Hawaii have her back; there is no fear of the law for her at all.
Which is probably why she keeps pulling crap out of her rear end and presenting it to the public as if we should sniff it and be pleased. What’s sad is that in spite of the whiff we can all smell, there are people acting like she took a feather from her hat and called it macaroni, instead of the brown stuff she’s shoving in our faces instead. Unbelievable.
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.