Replies

Maybe it’s finally dawning on them that there are huge loopholes within the system; both state and federal.

Without going into all the issues over the document itself, yeah, there is are loopholes in the Hawaiian Statutes you can drive a Mack truck through about birth documentation. The CertificaTION of Live Birth did not exist until Nov 2001, designed as a way to allow a requester quicker access to verification of their birth.

“This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]."

The way Hawaiian law is written -- you can be born on ANOTHER PLANET and if you have a single Hawaiian "parent" willing to claim you as their own, you can be granted a Hawaiian "birth certificate," become a US Citizen -- and by default, a NBC:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

What this all means is BHO could have been born in Japan on a shopping trip, at a home for runaways in Canada, or in Kenya on a visit to Obama Sr's old homestead and he could still get a document saying he was “born in the USA.”

As long as the birth mother (in this case) proved her Hawaiian residency and said "my child was born in Seattle, but by virtue of my state residency, I want the birth to show as Hawaii," -- POOF -- we now have a Hawaiian birth record for BHO.

I have read a lot on this whole issue and many point to the newspaper listing of his birth announcement.

Well, sorry folks -- that is a vanity listing submitted to the paper since only a few of those appear each day and they are dwarfed by the number of kids born in the islands.

Just like marriage news items are only a sample of all the marriages done. Furthermore, if it WAS used by Ann or her mother to acquire a Certificate of Late Birth or some other document, Hawaiian Rule 902(6) and others rules have provisions against "presumptive authenticity" of such a documents such as a newspaper clipping: Rule 902. Self-authentication. "Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: ... (6) Newspapers and periodicals. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.

Local people interested in this issue in Hawaii have tried to find anybody who worked the hospitals back then in the delivery rooms to recall if such a birth was done.

The loophole in the law makes even the COLB a problem.

To fully find out what happened the state record will have to be opened to see if he was born in Hawaii and the court may have to demand that.

The COLB is built from source documents.

The doctor who attended the birth (or nurse who certifies from the delivery room or even a midwife in some cases) has to submit the paperwork to document the trail.

If he was born out of state and the COLB is by the mothers certification then that documentation would be in the record.

People have been trying every angle on this from talking to people who worked in the delivery rooms then to trying to access lists of who used the delivery rooms to even admission records or ambulance records to get to the hospital.

Right now nobody can find a shred to support the birth in either hospital of size there because partly of current privacy laws.

BHO in his books talks of a different form of the birth record because he relates of how it included his birth weight. The current COLB does not but 60s era COLBs issued then did include that data.

Trouble is if you request a copy today you only get the same info you see on the newer version and you will not for example see the birth weight given. And since you cannot be the witness at your own birth, you need a witness, preferably with an "attesting signature" to prove to the WORLD that you ARE who you say you are. There's none on the CertificaTION of Live Birth.

There is much more data in the source file at the state that the COLB is extracted from and that is the real data that needs to be looked at.

HOWEVER, after doing some research, I think the key to beating Hawaiian Statutes 338-13(b), 338-17.8, and 338-19 may be herein:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0626/HRS_0626-0001-0901.htm and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0626/HRS_0626-0001-0902.htm and
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0626/HRS_0626-0001-0903.htm

I've also discussed the statutes before, but what has driven me BONKERS is that Hawaii's DOH produces what is called a "Letter of Verification." This Letter contains the same data fields as those on a COLB, and a verification request for Obama WOULD have been issued if someone had simply made the effort.

Now, There is a HUGE difference between requesting a certified copy of the vault birth certificate, a certified copy of a COLB, and an uncertified Letter of Verification. It's right there in the same Hawaii Statue 338 for everyone to read.

I have been telling people until I was blue in the face, to "REQUEST THE FREAKIN' LETTER OF VERIFICATION," but it just did not sink into anyone's brain, not Berg, not Taitz, not Donofrio, not Martin, not Corsi, not anyone.

When Directors Chiyome Fukino and Alan Onaka gave their little dog-and-pony show for the media on 10/31, saying that "Hawaii had Obama's original birth certificate," Fukino also said the MAGIC WORD that everybody totally missed.

Here are her comments as they appeared in the now-scrubbed article by Dan Nakaso of the Honolulu Advertiser:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate," Fukino said in the statement. "State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes ¤338-18) prohibits the release of a

certified birth certificate

to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record..."

The Magic Word is CERTIFIED. Letters of Verification are NOT CERTIFIED, which is why someone other than Obama or a family member could have easily ordered one (like a social organization, or a business, or a school, or a publisher).

§338-18 Disclosure of records.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a CERTIFIED COPY of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.

Although the person or group ordering the Letter of Verification still needs to have a "tangible interest," can there be anything more "tangible" than needing to validate Obama's claim that he was born in Hawaii to Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr??

BUT....in reality (and to paraphrase the Bandito) "We don't need no stinking CERTIFICATION" to show that what Obama posted online does not contain the same birth information that would be shown in a Letter of Verification.

That is the whole point of requesting one.

Paragraph (b) above only applies the "tangible interest" criteria to the Letter of Verification. The list of people who can get a Letter, however, is quite lengthy and nowhere near as stringently defined as per requesting a certified copy.

In the same statute, 338, Paragraph 13 (g) says the following:

The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

Is it beginning to sink in yet just how many different individuals or groups could have easily obtained a Letter of Verification for Obama?

You know what? They still can, and Hawaii's DOH can be sued if they refuse to do so. Hawaii would have a tough sell claiming that a Letter of Verification is protected by Privacy Laws when the COLB that was posted online made all of its data fields a part of the public record since June 2008. A Letter of Verification prints the exact, same data fields as does the COLB. The only things missing from it are the certification elements, namely the Seal and Registrar's stamp.

Maybe Alan Keyes would try to order one, or a government official. A head of a non-profit social service agency, or a church, could try.

The only way to determine if it is possible, is for someone to do it, and then, if Hawaii's DOH balks, sue them for violating Hawaii statute 338-13(g).