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.
Here is my request along with a link to the final ruling from the OIP on appeal. Joesting restates Fukino’s opinion that those documents are part of the vital record and protected from public disclosure by law, then she upholds that decision. If you want to badger someone to see it your way, you are going to have to give me more than your take on things:
“1.) I request an electronic copy of any and all UIPA requests made by President Barack Obama or anyone
claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records so that he could make ‘corrections’ to his
vital record information.
2.) I request an electronic copy of the ruling(s) or opinion(s) of those record requests.
3.) Please provide me electronic copies of all communication concerning formal or informal UIPA request(s)
made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital
records.
4.) Please send me an electronic copy of any and all invoices and receipts of fees paid on behalf of or by
President Obama for access to his vital records, amendments or anything pertaining to his vital records.”
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/clearer-joesting-appeal-doc/
Should read NOT trying to engage ...
“I’m trying to engage you or ask you to defend someone else’s statement. I was just making a point about parsing words.”
I believe you meant “not trying” but again, I won’t try to explain what someone else wrote.=)
Wouldn't an actual threat have to be proved rather than a hypothetical?
Do the feds want to be the only people who can investigate or murder, kidnapping, theft, or other federal cases?
When somebody robs the local Casey’s Store is it the feds who are going to have to answer the call while the local police twiddle their thumbs?
Is that what you’re saying?
What number did you call and to whom did you speak?
Records of processing (such as requests to see or amend documents) would be included in HRS 338-01 under the definition of “public health statistics” records. Those are different from “vital records”. (See at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm )
Look at the difference between HRS 338-18a and HRS 338-18b; the former applies to “vital statistics records”, the second to “public health statistics records”. They are two different things. (See at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm ).
Multiple OIP Opinion Letters say that records of a legal name change must be public, although the applications for them are considered to have a personal privacy interest and are thus not discloseable. But that is specifically one type of an amendment to a vital record which is required to be public. If records of amendments were considered, themselves, to be a “vital record” then HRS 338-18a would forbid it and the OIP Opinion Letters would have been totally different.
The fact that the OIP has confirmed that legal name changes to a birth certificate must be disclosed to the public blows apart the argument that amendments to BC’s have to be confidential because they are “vital records”.
808.586.4400
I was transferred twice. I spoke with a female. She wouldn’t give a name because she didn’t want to be quoted. I wanted the information, so I agreed not to press for a name.
Feel free to call yourself to confirm the information.
The ruling that MissTickly received indicated that those records were part of Obama’s vital records, which is what prompted my questions.
“Wouldn’t an actual threat have to be proved rather than a hypothetical?”
Interestingly enough, I provided the following support:
I cited the Southern Poverty Law Center, from an article where they claimed that the ‘birther’ issue was enflaming extreme racist groups and endangering the president. Since they are experts, I figured their (fake) warning should be used to argue for disclosure.
I provided comments from Politico where lefties were telling ‘birthers’ that they were ready to start a civil war with them.
I also provided an AP article that said the Secret Service was overextending because of the threats from extremists like the ‘birthers.’
Anyway, it did not yield disclosure because privacy laws trump the health and safety provision.
You tell me. Would Justice Stevens throw away the First Amendment right to burn Korans because of a hypothetical threat that it could enrage Muslims, or would he have to have specific threats from specific Muslims first?
Would the HDOH deny access to Obama’s records because of a hypothetical embarrassment he might feel?
The law is full of hypotheticals. Bureaucrats deal with hypotheticals all the time.
But even if there had to be a specific threat, I told the HDOH I had received specific threats, and I have. How do you think they will respond?
They are supposed to inform me if there’s a better or more appropriate term for a record I have requested, if it’s apparent to them.
If they applied my request for access to a standard DOH application to amend, they should have informed me of the substitution.
Perhaps, I will ask Fukino if they did so... Could yield an interesting answer...
Is a "Casey’s Store" (never heard of it) on federal property? Native American land?
I don't get what that has to do with the Arizona law being challenged by the DOJ.
An engineer natural born American citizen of European ancestry, who lives in Arizona was telling me about his Native American natural born citizen co-worker who gets stopped so frequently and asked to prove his citizenship that he now keeps a copy of his military discharge papers on the dashboard of his car.
This never happens to the white European looking engineer, just the Indian (Mexican) appearing co-worker.
Perhaps that's your idea of what freedom meant to the founding fathers, but it sounds more like oppressive police state tactics to me.
It could be that Obama has a sealed adoption record and had to obtain a court order to even access it.
That request for access would certainly be protected by privacy laws.
Please do. I would be interested to know what she says.
Just off the top of my head, to make the determination that the threat was actual and not hypothetical would be beyond a bureaucrat's pay scale. I would think that is an issue that would require a court order.
That could very well be the case.
I did find an interesting scenario while researching the amendment process. In the section that talks about amending a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” it says that any amendment requests will be treated as an application for late registration and a new certificate issued. It also says that if the applicant already has a standard birth certificate, that any amendments requested for a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” will be made to the standard birth certificate.
So my question is, “How does one get both types of certificates?”
Who does this Arizonan get stopped and questioned by and where?
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.