Obama hasn’t altered anything at the HDOH and therein lies his problem. The HDOH knows he posted a forgery, and if the HDOH would ever have to show even so much as a non-certified COLB - which HDOH rules require to be released to anybody who asks for it - then the forgery would be seen because it doesn’t match the official records.
I suspect that Obama hadn’t anticipated the problems with his BC being amended - hadn’t realized that the amendment would have to be shown on any BC (either long-form or abbreviated) that the HDOH prints for him, or that his BC number would reflect the date of the AMENDMENT, since that was when his BC was finally completed.
HRS 338-18 is clear that disclosures by the HDOH are supposed to be done through disclosure of the actual DOCUMENTS as instructed in the Administrative Rules - not by announcements, since 338-18a forbids HDOH personnel from disclosing anything that is on a birth certificate outside the channels outlined by the laws and rules.
The reason for that is clear: anything officially printed has to have note of the legal status of the record. Fukino has NOWHERE said what the status of Obama’s BC is. The records themselves would HAVE to say the status, which is why the law requires disclosures to be made via DOCUMENT RELEASE.
The HDOH knows the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. When I asked Okubo directly whether she would report a forgery to law enforcement if she knew of it, she said she couldn’t reveal ANYTHING from a BC. So HDOH officials are officially on record saying it’s OK to tell the public that the BC says Obama was born in Hawaii but NOT OK to report a forgery to law enforcement. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
It’s a perversion of due process and the rule of law.
It was pretty darn stupid of Obama’s people to not use the “date filed” as well as the BC# of the person they stole the BC# from. I suspect they left the “date filed” that is actually on Obama’s BC and just put the BC# from this other person, not going to the trouble that I went to of looking at other BC’s from Kapiolani and seeing that they were submitted to the HDOH on Fridays.
Regarding the microfilms of the newspapers, if I had permission from the person who let me see the copies of the newspapers themselves I could prove to you that the microfilms were changed out at least once in every library we checked which has the 1961 Advertiser or Star-Bulletin (and there is only one library that has them that we didn’t check). They did the really stupid thing of changing out clean microfilms for supposedly scratched ones, so that the microfilms got cleaner over time rather than more scratched up. They made a lot of other errors also, but without permission I can’t show you the proof.
So no, Mojitojoe and I aren’t in disagreement over this. The Factcheck COLB is a forgery; the HDOH is refusing to show anything official because it would prove the forgery. The newspaper announcements are forged also, and we have proof that the microfilms were changed out. There’s more too, but without permission I can’t show the proof.
Golly, you have evidence to prove BO was not born in Hawaii, but you can't show it to anybody, because you don't have permission. Lucky for him that such evidence didn't fall into he hands of someone who would release it, and damn the consequences.
/sarcasm
When you say you would need permission to release whatever information there is, are you talking about a librarian or somebody with one of the newspapers?? I'm trying to understand why this information has to be withheld pending permission. The person in question would appear to be an accessory to fraud, so you would be protecting this person from potential criminal prosecution by not going public. I would think the public interest at large outweighs whatever self-interests this person has.
“...without permission I can’t show you the proof.”
Permission to see the actual item you suspect to be fraudulent? Or permission to make what you believe public?