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.=)
btt
I do agree you are an arrogantsob. Goodnight.
It is a simple matter to show that this lie is being foisted as a diversdion from the truth. Deceitful posters are then exposed when they try to make the lie stand.
One quick note: the obamanoids will play both sides of their counterfeit coin, claiming there is no definition in the Constitution for Natural Born. It is chosen by them then to reject all possible definitions except the one that they fambricate which favors their deceit, which coincidentally would make all anchor babies natural born citizens. The game is to establish lie(s) through repetition, confusion, and/or default.
The following scenario will quickly illustrate that arrogantsob is purposely deceiving the forum with insistence that the only issue is where Barry was born.
In 1980, Stanley Ann filed papers in Hawaii to divorce Lolo Soetoro (recall that Barry was born in 1961, supposedly, so he would have been 19 when his mother filed for divorce). In her pleading to the court (and filing false claims to a court is a criminal act) she calimed that there were two children Lolo was responsible to assist financially, Maya, his daughter by birth, and a child over eighteen, the legally adopted Barry Soetoro, then already in his second year at Occidental College. This means that in 1980 Barry Soetoro was still legally, well, Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen, adopted son of Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian. There are relevant clues which refer to statements Barry made to his sister Maya in 1988, Thanksgiving--according to his Ayers written autonarcissicuss biography, when Barry claimed that the name Barry was to be no more from then onward, he would be Barack Hussein Obama. But that point is not relevant to showing that the mere use of Indonesian citizenship by Barry Soetoro--to enter Occi College as an Indonesian, or obtain foreign student aid, or acquire a passport as an Indonesian--would be an act by the individual to nullify the American citizenship he held in duality and thus forfeit natural birn status if he ever had it.
Now liars for Barry Obama, inc. will meticulously attack that scenario, but it is sound as a possible way, other than where Barry was born, to show he would not be a natural born citizen as an adult.
So, when you see an obamanoid trying to float an absolute, which deceit if accepted would make Barry's past forgeries and lies and possible criminal fraud mute by merely having an accepted document showing born in Hawaii, know that you are reading the work of not someone seeking truth, but a servant of lies for their expedience.
BTW, there are otyher ways that just having a genuine Hawaiian CoLB isn't proof of natural born citizenship, but that is for another roasting.
Welcome back I was on the original thread when you posted about DOH response to your request. You stirred me on and I made some inquiries also, I think Hawaii is getting their bluff called. Thanks for all your work.
rs
Your scenario can work in tandem with mine, FYI.=)
I am with you.
Well, you did hijack the thread away from MissTickly’s request for assistance for a case she is working on with Hawaii DOH.
I don’t have to deal with you, frankly, as I came on the thread to see what MissTickly was up to - not to hear your arguments which are out of place on the subject of this thread, IMHO.
What you say is true of Obama, Sr. Unfortunately, his mother was not and IF Urkle was born in Hawaii he is NBC no matter the father’s status. IF he was born in Kenya as one of his grandmother’s claims then he is NOT natural-born.
Today if he were born in Kenya to an American citizen even underage as his mom was then he would still be natural-born but not at that time since the American citizen mom had to be of age to pass on citizenship. That has been changed by Congress.
So the case still boils down to WHERE he was born and we don’t really know. There are conflicting claims by family members as to the hospital where the blessed event took place.
This issue first became public around here spring of 2008.
No question that Congress can and has changed the laws regarding who is natural-born and I mentioned it wrt to the change as it affecting underage moms such as Urkle’s.
At the Founding a non-natural born citizen could become president if they were here 14 yrs prior to the ratification. While Jay’s comments are of interest they did not become the basis of citizenship law and that has changed over the centuries.
I have seen nothing to make me believe any of the documents Urkle has posted are legitimate and much to make me believe they are fraudulent in toto. Nor is the “newspaper birth announcement” convincing or good evidence.
If Urkle is eligible it is hard to understand why he has inundated the courts with lawyers and briefs as to why he should not submit the proof to the courts. Nor do I understand why the courts let him get away with it.
Good work I didn’t believe you so clever.
I've had no problem getting through to Hawaiian offices in the past, so it will be interesting to see what happens at this juncture, even if I don't get an answer. [ BTW: Janice Okubo's office number is 808 586 4442 ]
What the hell do you believe I am trying not to get answered?
I want to know What country he was born in? Who the doctors where in attendence? What was the hospital? Were the parents even married (though this is of no constitutional import). At best he is the child of statutory rape.
What do YOU want to know that I don’t?
Any examination of my writing here will show you I despise this guy. He is a total fraud, a crook and friends with those who have made a career attempting to destroy this nation.
Yet, because some don’t like the way I approach things I am accused of defending him?
because that info didn’t come from the hospital. It came from somewhere else perhaps...?
It seems to me, in the research I can find, these items would totally work in his favor to bolster his case for being Natural Born. I am not a lawyer but I do have a PHD in Theology and am fairly adept at research. This is what I have found and need some feedback on to formulate my personal stance on this issue. Here is what I have found.
A. In Bar’s International Law Section 81 it states; “it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it-that of the father where the children are lawful, and where they are bastards, that of the mother, without regard to the place of their birth;”
B. Savingay on Private International Law, Section 851, “Illegitimate children acquire by origio citizenship in the native place of the mother.”
Is President Obama hiding his Long form birth certificate due to embarrassing revelations it holds while knowing it will back up his Natural Born status? If so and this comes out what effect will it have on his ability to remain in office or will it be swept under the rug?
That is a lie. I responded to a comment another had made about what was in the Constitution then wintertime launched into me claiming I wanted a bunch of definitions in the Constitution. And s/he gave a long lecture on honorablity and godliness none of which I doubted or disputed. Then it degenerated into him calling me names in a cowardly fashion.
I apologize for taking the bait and blasting him in like fashion but I did not start insulting him.
As to understanding the terms used by Hawaii in order to do so the questions need to be precise and explicit and they have not been. There must be no typos or grammatical mistakes. Nor have all the discussion been limited to those questions.
You are a hijacking POS you know that.
While I would be happy to see evidence presented to the USSC to rule in this matter I do not believe it appropriate to ex post facto change the law even by amendment to make him eligible if he is not. That goes against the entire spirit of the requirement.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Show one of my comments that indicates I don’t want the truth to come out about Urkle or that obstruct the search for the truth here.
Don’t you have something better to do on a Friday night other than bate people? Of course not. How much is Soros paying you? OK, I take the bait lets play.
First of all Native Born does not = Natural Born.
Second the 1898 Wong Ark did not settle who is a natural born citizen the case was about citizen. Nowhere in that case did the opinion of the court call Wong a Natural Born Citizen.
Third, the 14th Amendment did not settle the issue about who is a Natural Born Citizen as it pertains to the US Constitution.
BTT
It is a common ruse to conflate citizenship with natural born citizenship. With a PhD in Theology I trust you would not try that one ... unless you’re name is Barry Lynd, heretic extraordinaire. Citizen is a broad category, whereas natural born citizen is an extremely narrow category which applies solely to eligibility for the office of President, as far as I have been able to ascertain.
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.