1) We know the birth was registered within days of it taking place because the Health Department placed birth announcements in the papers.
2) We know it must have been registered as taking place in Hawaii because Fukino verified that the vital records show birth in Hawaii.
Therefore, the only possible way Obama could have been born outside of Hawaii is if someone committed fraud and registered his birth to be within state.
Now here is where you, like all birthers, run into a problem. Under the law, a timely birth registration such as Obama's enjoys the presumption of accuracy. So now the burden is on you to prove that fraud took place in 1961 when the brith was registered. The burden is not on Obama to prove the birth record is correct.
Now you argue that there should be an investigation into a possible fraud, since it cannot be ruled out with complete certainty. Therefore, you argue that all of Obama's documents protected by privacy laws should be disclosed.
Here you run into another problem. You cannot just demand disclosure of something simply because you suspect fraud was committed. Before any judge will grant you disclosure, you must have some evidence lending credence to your suspcion. Otherwise you are just going on a fishing expedeition, something judges generally don't view favorablely.
Unfortuantely for you, you have no evidence even remotely suggesting a fraud took place in 1961. Even worse, you have no motive.
Now I realize you claim otherwise, so I'll take your claims appart one by one.
Your claim for motive:
Perhaps if she was aware of the procedures and was near a consulate. It would have been a lot easier to contact Granny and let her file paperwork with the Hawaii registrar.
You have got to be kidding. This is all you have for motive? I don't really feel a need to respond to that. If you think any judge, or for that matter, any reasonable person would take that seriously as a motive, then you aren't living in the real world.
As to the evidence, I say with confidence that any reasonable person would find it laughable. Let's look at your claims one by one.
Better tell that to Michelle "Kenya is my husband's home country" Obama.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for US-born Children of immigrants to think of their parents' country of origin as their "home country." If you think this is evidence of anything, you really need to get a grip on reality.
false certificate number,
Oh please, not this silly one. Let me guess, you think it's false because Obama's number comes after the Nordyke twins number, and yet he was born before them. Do I have that right?
Here's a question I'd like to see a birther answer. What makes you so sure birth certificate numbers always came in the same order as the births?
mismatching COLBs,
No, you have a document's scanned image whose proportions don't exactly match that of the same document's photographs. Again, this is silly, because it is well known that scanners can distort images. If you tried to bring this before a judge, you'd get laughed right out of the court room.
unconfirmed COLB,
The DOH can't confirm the authenticity of an internet image. Why you should consider this as evidence of anything is baffling.
the DOH violating its own laws to avoid disclosing legal information
As far as I can tell, it has violated no law. If you think otherwise, please specify the exact law that was violated.
The newspaper says 'Health Bureau' and we don't know if the listings were placed by that department or if the newspapers sent a reporter to the registrar's office to get the listings. The number of days isn't at issue, except as it relates to the certificate number.
2) We know it must have been registered as taking place in Hawaii because Fukino verified that the vital records show birth in Hawaii.
No. We don't know this at all. She said unspecified vital records 'verify' the place of birth as Hawaii, but she doesn't say that this information is contained on the original birth certificate.
Therefore, the only possible way Obama could have been born outside of Hawaii is if someone committed fraud and registered his birth to be within state.
Again, this is why we need to see original records.
Under the law, a timely birth registration such as Obama's enjoys the presumption of accuracy.
Too bad we don't know what details are included on the birth registration.
Therefore, you argue that all of Obama's documents protected by privacy laws should be disclosed.
Obama is a public figure and a public servant. He released his income tax records. He has the same expectation to be transparent for his birth records when there are obvious problems.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for US-born Children of immigrants to think of their parents' country of origin as their "home country."
Obama is not the child of an immigrant and we don't know whether he was U.S. born or not.
Here's a question I'd like to see a birther answer. What makes you so sure birth certificate numbers always came in the same order as the births?
Didn't say it was in the order of births. The give-away is the publication in the newspaper. Spokesbabe Okubo says the state applies the certificate number when the certificate is filed with the state. Obama's COLB says it was filed Aug. 8, and it was published Aug. 13. The Nordyke twins COLBs were filed three days later and published three days later. Other known certificate numbers are consistent at being low at the beginning of the year and higher at the end of the year. The incriminating part is that the DOH refuses to confirm the number as belonging to Obama despite having full legal authority. Other states issue certificate numbers along with index data.
No, you have a document's scanned image whose proportions don't exactly match that of the same document's photographs.
The scans show an edge to the document that is not matched by the document in the photographs. The only way to explain this is if the paper grew or if one or both documents are fraudulent.
The DOH can't confirm the authenticity of an internet image. Why you should consider this as evidence of anything is baffling.
Your arguments are getting progressively weaker and weaker. The alleged COLB is supposed to be a database-generated abstract of the original birth certificate. The DOH has all the factual details it needs to confirm the jpg, but refuse in spite of having protection under the state's sunshine laws to confirm the information, thus confirming the alleged COLB. Why settle for lame excuses and misdirection??
As far as I can tell, it has violated no law. If you think otherwise, please specify the exact law that was violated.
They explain one law they violated on their Barack Hussein Obama FAQ page, which says: "State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule." They cite HRS §338-18(b). By this claim, they cannot reveal that Obama was born in Hawaii or that he is a 'natural born American citizen.' By the way, their administrative rules say they can release non-certified copies of vital records to anyone, not just persons with a direct and tangible interest. An opinion letter posted by the Office of Information Practices says the DOH can release certificate numbers to the public. So far, the DOH has refused such requests. Requests were made for divorce records upon which Spokesbabe Okubo said her department didn't handle divorce records. Their own Web site says they do. "Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) on file with the Department of Health may be amended (i.e., changes, corrections, additions, deletions, or substitutions) upon submission of the required documentation."