The Full Story: CNN Caught Lying About Hawaii Law & The Release Of Obama's Purported Records

The Full Story: CNN Caught Lying About Hawaii Law And The Release Of Obama's Purported Records; Hawaii Law On The Side Of Birthers

First Off: "prima facie": (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial...- It is fair to say there's substantial contradictory evidence regarding Obama's life narrative and birth... Too bad American voters have no "standing" to challenge the 0ne...

What CNN Failed To Report: CNN showed two different Obama COLB's. One with creases from Factcheck.org and the redacted COLB with out creases posted at Obama's FightTheSmears.com.

The U.S. State Department web site clearly reads; "Please note, some short(abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."...

The Birth Announcements: Even if Obama's COLB is real it does NOT prove a Hawaiian birth. The same type COLB's could also be issued to children not born in Hawaii, under Hawaii law, then and now. That also would have triggered the "birth" announcements as they were produced from a list sent from the HDOH, not the hospital or the parents/grandparents.

Researcher Butterdezillion lays down the law regarding the release of vital records: All requests by those authorized by HRS 338-16 through 338-18 to receive either copies or abstracts MUST be fulfilled. (Note the word "SHALL".) Unless disclosure is forbidden by the laws or rules the request as made must be fulfilled.

HRS 338-13 says: (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

Contrary to the claims of the Hawaii Attorney General's Office, that statute specifically allows photocopies:

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

3. HRS 338-18(a) only forbids disclosures that are not authorized by the rules or by HRS 338-18. HRS 338-18(a) says:

(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

4. HRS 338-18b allows those with a direct and tangible interest (including the registrant and his/her relatives, among others) to receive a CERTIFIED COPY OF PUBLIC HEALTH STATISTICS RECORDS. HRS 338-1 defines "public health statistics records" thusly:

"Public health statistics" includes the registration, preparation, transcription, collection, compilation, and preservation of data pertaining to births, adoptions, legitimations, deaths, fetal deaths, morbidity, marital status, and data incidental thereto.

And UIPA (HRS 92F-3) defines "government records" thusly:

"Government record" means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form. The registration of a birth, in written form, is clearly a "public health statistics record". A certified copy of that paper document is discloseable to anybody with a direct and tangible interest.

5. The DOH Administrative Rules distinguish between the standard birth certificate and the abstract of CONTENT from the birth certificate ("abbreviated birth certificate", now commonly called the short-form or CertificaTION of Live Birth/COLB). Anybody who requests it is authorized to receive a non-certified copy of a COLB, but only those with a direct and tangible interest are allowed to receive a certified copy of either the COLB or the standard birth certificate.

The rules specifically say that the confidential medical portion of the standard birth certificate will not be released UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED.

"Public Health Regulations", Chapter 8b, 2.4(B)(d) says:

(d) Confidential information. Information contained in the section headed "Confidential Information for Medical and Health Use Only" or other similar designation shall not be included on a standard certified copy unless specifically requested by an individual named on the certificate or by a court of competent jurisdiction.... -snip-

Complete details on Hawaii's dirty deeds including links to the above info located at: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com

More proof the Media and Hawaii officials are lying to the American people. Hawaii long-form issued on March 15, 2011:

Any idea why there is no raised seal on this document?

*******

That's a good question, but I think the person who originally posted the Hawaii birth certificate on the internet would probably have a reasonable explanation about why the Hawaii seal is not visible: Miki Booth over at Post%Email I believe.

As I understand it, Miki Booth posted the Hawaii birrh certificate of the child of a friend.

I see the Onaka stamp and the date of March 15, 2011, but I don't see a Hawaii seal.

So, if you go to the Post&Email site and try to contact Miki Booth to find out what she says, it would help those of us who did not think to look for the seal until you mentioned it.

I hope that you can contact Miki Booth and find out why we don't see the Hawaii seal, while we do see Onaka's stamp.

Let us know what Miki Booth says. She seems like a nice person, although I have never contacted her. Good luck.

(which is a lie ... she simply had statutory authority as the director of the health deparmtent).

Yes, as the custodian of those records, she can inspect them at her wish. Always another lie.

If she has a “direct and tangible interest,” she can disclose the record. She would have the same right to do disclose the record as Obama does.

Make sense. The state of Hawaii has always been hiding behind that fig leaf. They could always release Obama's birth certificate but would not certify it for identification purposes, and state the information on the birth certificate as true.

The lies flow so easily from Hawaii.

Belated update prompted by a profanity laced FReep Mail reply from a FReeper whose Hawaiian BC has supposedly been posted to the internet ...

I contacted the "Post & email" as you suggested. I specifically asked about the raised seal on the "Booth" BC. A day or so later I got a short reply from "Sharon Rondeau." She told me, "I am able to see embossed seals on all of the birth certificates which Ms. Booth provided to us." That was it.

So I replied that I was having trouble bringing it out with Photoshop, and asked he to tell me the location of the seal relative to other easily recognizable features on the BC. Her reply in full was, "I'm sorry, I am not a document or technical expert."

This was enough to make me wary of anything in this P&e.

To be honest I'm not sure if the FReeper in question is Booth or another person; or whether P&e has featured both the FReeper and Booth. The thing, I know now is that both Booth and the FReeper BCs were very much obscured to protect the identity of each.

Of course I'm not interested at all in the personal stuff. I told the FReeper in question I was interested in a high density scan and asked if she could just email me the bottom part with the signatures (except her mom's) and the registrar's stamp. Her first reply in part (leaving out stuff that identifies her) was:

I believe that Hawaii has supplied legitimate documents in so far as any IMAGE of them can determine. No photograph of a document is ever going to prove or disprove the ACTUAL document as real or fake. It cannot be determined from a picture of it.
Obama is ineligible because he was born British, and I believe the birth certificate issue is hiding this. I believe that people should be talking about the conditions of Obama’s birth - being born British, a dual citizen - not his birth certificate or place of birth.
? I can’t keep scanning and re-scanning. I have been doing it now since 2008 and I have to draw the line somewhere.
I am sorry my FRiend!

I replied that this didn't pass my smell test. I wasn't asking for a rescan of anything. If she had any scan I could enlarge she could have sent it to me with less effort than the following reply took:

You know ML, I really don’t give a s**t. I have spent HOURS of my time, photographing and scanning my birth documents, over and over and over. Its never enough, someone else comes asking me to do this that or the other scan at 600dip or 300 dpi or 1200 dpi. Its never enough... If that isn’t enough for you tough.
You didn’t even ask nicely.
So shove off. There are tons of images on the net. Do some freaking searching. The last post I made on it, which I gave you the link to, is the last one I am going to do. I have done ENOUGH.
GO smell up someone else’s skirt, I am sick of this s**t and sick of your “smell test”.

From this one I only redacted her FReepname and a couple of letters in the profanity she used.

I would also point out that it is a bit odd for someone who supposedly posted a real Hawaiian BC to tell people that you cannot tell anything from an image and that Obama is ineligible because he was born British. I would have thought her intent was to show that a real BC could be obtained, and that Obama & Co. were lying. After all, Obama has always claimed a British subject as his father.

ML/NJ

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.