Posted on 10/02/2009 3:35:27 PM PDT by MissTickly
President Obama's original birth certificate was "record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but his vital records were "maintained on file."
Oct,31, 2008: “...Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures..."
July 27, 2009: "“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
July 27, 2009, I asked this question of the Hawaiian DoH: "Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama's AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
A careful parsing of words seems necessary because one COLB can say this: "Filed by Registrar" While another can say this: "Accepted by Registrar" Despite what you read online, or see presented by anonymous people that you've never met and you don't know-Hawaii must explain what this means. It's a procedural question that I cannot get an answer to. Why?
The last I communicated to Dr. Fukino, on October 1st, I wrote her the following, and she has not responded to correct any mischaracterizations. Please take note of that:
Dr. Fukino--
Per your press release statement on July 27, 2009, are you telling us that, in part, you saw "vital records" that include some kind of a representation of a stated "filed" and threfore pending application for an amended/corrected Birth Certificate (it was on file, not on record) and evidence filed to support an amendment/correction, but that evidence was still pending approval on July 27, 2009? I am sorry for the characterizations I give in lieu of knowing the legal jargon. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized anything.
I am finally realizing I really need to understand what 'on file' and 'filed with the registrar' means compared to "accepted by registrar" and "on record." Can you help me understand or direct me to one of your staff for explanation? If you don't already know--a woman has presented her own "filed with registrar" type COLB that she asserta represents a normal, indexed-at-birth, run of the mill Hawaiian birth certificate to natural parents with all information in pristine, original condition.
Is that possible? Should a record like I just described typically say "Accepted by Registrar?"
I have requested from the AG library archive, the opinion letter that I believe sets out the procedures for filing an application for an amended birth certificate. But I have not received it yet. If the DoH is able to provide a copy--please do.
If you meant for people to understand you in July, and if I am understanding things correctly without having the necessary AG letter. Woman, I seriously underestimated you. I want people like you working for government.
I don't know what you can answer that I just asked, if anything. But, if you can correct any mischaracterizations about policy and procedure--please do.
I am giving pause to all of this. You have been very candid, I believe. I just was too blind to see that you put it all out there for anyone paying attention. You've been as fair as can be to BOTH sides of this issue from what I can discern.
Thank you. T.
*
And I brought my question from July 27, 2009 full circle:
Aloha Dr. Fukino,
Please use THIS version of my questions. So very sorry--I am struggling with the difference between the words "on file" and "on record." I am going to go with "on record." I realize I might have to resubmit at some point with the "on file" language.
If you would please answer the following questions for me per your statement on July 27, 2009:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
On July 27, 2009 per your issued statement, did you personally verify that the "vital records" you saw were NOT maintained on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?
On July 27, 2009 per your issued statement, did the Registrar of Vital Statistics personally see and verify that the "vital records" you saw were NOT maintained on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?
Thank you for your continued patience on this issue. If you would please answer the two questions above separately--that would be ideal. I am afraid that a blending of the answers will muddy your efforts to be forthcoming with the public. If you have already been forthcoming--that effort should be recognized and not distorted.
Sincerely, T.
*
CONCLUSIONS? Was the President's Natural Born Citizenship verified with a long form birth certificate, an application to amend his birth place and insufficient pending evidence of that amendment? On July 28th, did Congress sell us out with a Resolution that declared that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961?
Did Congress provide the 'evidence' to amend the President's Birth Place.
Get answers from Hawaii. If need be, get answers from Congress.
Thanks for letting me post here FR.=)
I think this may have the answer: Hawaii Attorney General Opinion 84-14
It sets out the procedures to file for an amended Birth Certificate.
They are sending it snail mail and claim the file is too big too email.
Request one too: hawaiiag@hawaii.gov
“It may be a whole lot easier if we can find someone in Hawaii that can research the answer to the question “ Date Accepted by Registrar” v. “ Date Filed by Registrar”.”
Both comments are extremely relevant to this discussion since you cannot handle them they become “red herrings”. But avoiding the issues do not make them go away nor is that the action of an honorable man.
I would start forming pointed questions to the DOH from this section.
-----
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly "late" or "altered". (b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates. (c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file. (d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action. The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.
(e) As used in this section, "late" means one year or more after the date of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §20; RL 1955, §57-19; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-16; am L 1972, c 66, §1(2); am L 1997, c 305, §3]
--------
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2001/Vol06_Ch321-344/hrs338/HRS_338-16.htm
See #81 for the definition of natural-born. As you will note anyone born within the US is natural-born unless they are from a family owing allegiance to another sovereignty.
Obama would be native born and natural born if he were born within the US because of his mother’s citizenship no matter what anyone jurisdiction said about his father. That would be true today if he were born outside the US though it would not have been true at the time of his birth since she was not 18 at the time.
One does not need two US citizens as parents to be a natural-born citizen. All this was discussed over a year ago here and all the pertinent legal precedents discussed.
Idiocy must be catching.
Anyone following this issue, which apparently does not include you, would know the various aspects of the questions involved were asked and answered HERE a year ago when they were first being raised.
But it is easier to make stupid remarks that it is to actually research the questions.
A troll would encourage the irrelevant issues some raise around here. A serious person would research what has already been discussed on threads which ran into the hundreds of replies.
There is ONE issue of importance “was Urkle born in the US?” If he was he is eligible. If he was not (and we have no proof that he was) then he is not.
Indonesian adoptions, father’s citizenship, travelling under other passports, college funds raised under false pretenses have NO bearing on eligibility whatever else they may mean.
Why don’t you research the threads from a year ago before making stupid accusations of bad faith?
I am way ahead of you Red Steel. I have worked up a graphic illusrating how it applies to his COLB.
this part: “The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.”
Indicates there is some kind of window between applying for an amendment and getting all the supportive evidence submitted and reviewed for approval.
Obama’s COLB is what you are issued during this window. At least I strongly believe it is.
We need to verify. Does this sound reasonable?
““ Date Accepted by Registrar” v. “ Date Filed by Registrar”.
I would start forming pointed questions to the DOH from this section.
§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”. (b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates. (c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file. (d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action. The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.
(e) As used in this section, “late” means one year or more after the date of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §20; RL 1955, §57-19; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-16; am L 1972, c 66, §1(2); am L 1997, c 305, §3]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2001/Vol06_Ch321-344/hrs338/HRS_338-16.htm";
And you caught it slob.
Only for those whose job is to assert that which is not so like yourself were they answered. They have yet to be answered and the covering up and disrupting continues. How does it feel to work to keep alive such a huge fraud? Make you feel good? But thanks for the insult, troll; it gives you away even more.
Why don’t you look at where the question of defintions and the Constitution arose? I was responding to another’s claim that natural-born was discussed within the Constitution. By pointing out that it was NOT the dumbasses suddenly claimed I was a troll, geez.
I asked for nothing and wished for nothing merely made a simple TRUE comment. By pointing out what was NOT in the Constitution I became a troll.
Obama never held another citizenship that we know of because he COULD not not being of legal age required to make such a decision. Being adopted, IF ALREADY A US CITIZEN, cannot change his, mine or your citizenship status. Someone CLAINING on his behalf that he was citizen of another nation is just as powerless to change anything.
IF he decided when of legal age (18 or 21 I am unsure which is required)that he wanted to be Indonesian or Kenyan is a different matter.
I have been discussing this issue and trying to find the truth for longer than you have and have been infuriated to find such stonewalling and obsfustication coming from his advocates.
However, it is extremely destructive to raise points which do NOT address this issue and are not relevant such as the Indonesian adoption, the father’s citizenship, putative claims by other nations citizenship laws and other passports. Those are means of obscuring the REAL issue: Was he born in Hawaii or not? THAT is the only significant issue and is recognized as such by every serious investigator into this.
US law trumps ALL other claims. This is not even a controversial point as for as US courts are concerned. Yet, pointing this out also makes me a “troll”.
How does pointing out what is actually IN the Constitution disrupt this thread?
How does pointing out that US law is supreme over other law within US courts disrupt this thread?
Have you even read this thread from the beginning so that you know what got the dumbasses all excited?
The question is reasonable. There is no limit to how many questions they can answer as far as I’m concerned.
There were FAR more of these threads before the election and they were FAR more insightful since many of the posters actually recognized what the issues were. Why don’t you go and read one so you don’t have to start from ground zero? Some of them went into hundreds of posts and were filled with actual legal cases and precedents unlike this one.
There were several actual court cases filed and discussed at that time after the rulings were delivered apparently you are unfamiliar with them as well as the motives of those who are actually on the same side you are on.
You’ve come onto to this thread to disrupt it. This thread is about questioning the Hawaiian DoH to help us understand the terms and phrases they use on their vital statistic documents.
By no means have I “taken over the thread”. I must say that ANY questions asked of state official had better be clearer than those asked here so far or you will not get anywhere.
All I have done is try and increase the clarity of what people need to know and ask. If you cannot deal with me you have no chance against someone actually wanting to stop the truth from coming out.
I posted the definition of “natural-born” from Black’s law dictionary. It makes it clear that anyone born with the King’s dominion was natural born with the exception of those clearly owing allegiance to another sovereinty. Hence, a diplomat’s child or one born to visiting citizens of another sovereign is not “natural-born”. NOR are they native born. They are not US citizens at all.
Any child that is native born is natural born if the parents are not clearly “under the jurisdiction” of another nation. Or at least that appears to be the accepted meaning today. This is one of the biggest problems we have wrt illegals and anchor babies.
Go back and read the threads from last summer and fall when this was particularly hot.
There is NO question that foreign laws do not change the citizenship status of American citizens or that minors can have their status renounced on their behalf. It isn’t even a serious question.
Those who did serious work here posted the case names and details. You must be new to this issue.
Obama Sr WAS under the jurisdiction of another country- Kenya. As such, Obama is NOT a NBC.
Nice try. I’ve been on this issue for over a year. Even pulled the text for the British Nationality Act of 1948.
American laws do change the status of NBC status and has been born out in case law. Kim Wong Ark for one. Also, go back and read the letters from John Jay, specific to the issue of both parents needing to be citizens.
Furthermore, do your homework on the DoH rules. The original documents on hand could have been submitted well after the birth and if the birth did not occur in a hospital, could have been made based on a statement.
I’m waiting on verification of the Kenyan BC.
Regardless, ALL of the information and documents deserve to see the sunlight.
If Obama is legit, it won’t be a problem now, will it?
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.