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'm not obstructing any truth here dingy. I don't think I could.
“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?”
Other than something that would cast doubt on his NB status or his veracity on other things he has said, I cannot imagine anything, in this present society, that would be harmful to him. Nothing shocks Americans anymore. So, I cannot see what there could be that would be embarassing.
What you're doing is changing the subject by spamming the whole thread. I'm not the only one here who has that point of view. Look around ASlob.
“Other than something that would cast doubt on his NB status or his veracity on other things he has said, I cannot imagine anything, in this present society, that would be harmful to him. Nothing shocks Americans anymore. So, I cannot see what there could be that would be embarassing.”
AMEN.
Shall I start my response with insults, too?
Black’s does not define “native born” so it may not even be a legal term. This may help explain the inconclusive nature of the Wong Kim Ark case.
However, it does describe “native” as “A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” It then refers to U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark.
I agree that the 14th did not decide this issue though the discussion in Congress made it clear that transit aliens’ children were not to be considered citizens if born here. This should be verified through court actions.
Never said you were. I said show me one of my comments that was intended to obstruct the truth.
Your post started out with two quotes from the Doctor then you ask some questions about the terms used. Then you ask about an “amended” original birth certificate. Where did you get information that there was an amended original birth certificate? The quotes from the Doctor did not mention any amendments or proposed amendments did they?
Nope. But I asked the question anyway.
I don’t have to attest that a thing exists to ask about it.
The intent of the thread was not to insult the posters as you and a couple of others have done. I did not raise all the issues I have addressed either. If MIss Tickly asks me to leave for the good of the thread I will.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2351064/posts
This is the story behind the question I asked her.
OK. Just checking to make sure I didn’t miss something. If there is no amended certificate will the doctor discuss it at all?
Thank you, that clarifies the question.
When you are done with that link, read this one that explains how they made a statutory admission that he amended his birth certificate.
I asked for records proving he amended/corrected his birth certificate.
They had to answer in one of four ways.
One of those ways is “the agency does not maintain those records”
They didn’t answer with that one. They told me I couldn’t have them because they were protected by state law.
What state law protects something that doesn’t exist? Point me to the statute.
MHG,
Not being tricky or obtuse. Seriously trying to determine whether he is hiding the NB status or something else. I am not a constitutional scholar so I am asking an honest question. To my limited knowledge it seems he could use the fall back that Obama and Dunham were never legally married and although embarrassing it would still convey Natural Born status.
When a court finds that a marriage with children involved is void due to bigamous charges, the court stops short of making legal bastards of the children ... the remedy stops short of declaring innocent parties illegitimate because that would be court appointed punishment for innocent parties.
btt
Apparently the state admitted that you would have a right to obtain copies of invoices or fees paid subsequent to any amendment even though it could not show you what was in any such amendment. Did it ever admit there was any such invoice or fees? Did it turn them over to you?
There are logical problems with saying “the agency does not maintain those records” if said records do not exist. If there is an admission that fees or invoices subsequent to such records DO exist then it cannot say they don’t.
With no admission of such invoices or fees then I don’t know where you stand.
Are you certain that there are any fees associated with changing/amending a record. It would be in the interest of the state to have accurate records so they may not exist.
There is also the question of how throughly the state would investigate the appropriateness of any change. How would it verify that it was the person involved who was requesting a change? Or that the change was true?
There must be a procedure the state uses to address those questions and that procedure might also be something of interest to you.
Actually, Gray misstated what common law said about Natural Born Citizens by saying every child born to aliens in England were Natural Born Subjects. Judge Gray left out the "little fact" that in common law a child born of an alien father who owed another allegiance to another power. Nothing but dicta that did not have any bearing on Wong Kim Ark who decided the case based on the 14th Amendment.
And also in the Ark decision, (Blackstone) child's born to aliens in England are Natural Born Subjects, except when the child [Denizens] is also a subject of another sovereign and who have the almost the same rights of other Natural Born Subjects BUT not to hold high office.
I said your mass posting changed the nature of the thread. In other word a hijacking.
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.