HI lawmakers vote to limit Obama document requests

Washington Post ^ | April 27, 2010 | N/A

[Jet Jaguar]

Hawaii legislators have passed a measure allowing a state agency to ignore repeated requests from a person or organization for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.

The measure approved Tuesday by the state Legislature would carve an exemption in the state's public records law and allow officials to ignore all kinds of duplicative requests, including those for Obama's birth certificate.

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother.

SNIP

The bill now goes to Gov. Linda Lingle.

[nathanbedford]

Sometime ago I published two replies containing my take on the birth certificate issue has affected by the statements of the Hawaiian officials:

Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:

"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.

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 Barrack 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...." (emphasis supplied)

The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.

Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."

The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.

We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:

1) the birth certificate is "original."

2) the vital records contained "original" documents

3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate

4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.

The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.

Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."

Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.

I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.

To conclude otherwise than above is to say that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, together with the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the state of Hawaii, are either incompetent at their jobs or they are lying. In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy and our Confederate dollars. It is a proposition I do not find to be defensible enough to challenge.

I have seen the article posted some time ago here on Free Republic: Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts) which makes it clear that his mother, or even his grandparents, could have secured a birth certificate merely on the filing of an affidavit or perhaps even only an application. Evidently, his mother could have presented a drivers license which she evidently had or even as little as a telephone bill to show proof of residency, simply averring that her son was born there in Hawaii, and she would have received a Hawaiian birth certificate. The article cited goes on to describe three other methods by which a fraudulent certificate for Barack Obama could have been obtained in 1961 in Hawaii.

More, the author continues to the effect that Stanley Ann Obama would have been motivated to do so because her son was not entitled to citizenship under the existing statute if he were born abroad with only one parent a citizen who had not lived five years after the age of 14 in America.

Therefore, it is possible that when Doctor Fukino examined the "vital records" she saw an application or affidavit that said that the baby was born in Hawaii and she saw the Birth Certificate that was issued as a result which would also show birth in Hawaii. She saw nothing indicating a foreign birth in the file and therefore she could quite properly say that the vital records show birth in Hawaii. Indeed, to say anything else would be to venture a fact which appeared nowhere in the record.

While I take issue with your well reasoned and articulate perspective on the motivations of Doctor Fukino-I come to exactly the opposite conclusions-I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open. That is not to say that the probabilities are for a foreign birth, merely that it is not illogical to maintain that a foreign birth is quite consistent with the facts as we know them, the Certification of Live Birth, the procedures and regulations in place in Hawaii in 1961, and two statements of Doctor Fukino.

I think we probably both can agree that we will find nothing in the file which shows foreign birth. We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us. We have the burden to move it across the goal line. Even if the original birth certificate were released and it was revealed that it was based on family affidavits, we lose. We need extrinsic evidence of foreign birth.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Well that’s one way to get the issue to the USSC, it would seem.

Now there’s a case. First time a request is turned down under the new law.

Off it goes. Hope some smart conservative lawyer is drawing up the paperwork already.

---

It is unconstitutional to pass a law at the benefit of just one person....its a Bill of Attainder.

This argument was used in the Terri Schiavo case....that laws passed were to “protect only her”

I am sure there are some lawyers out there ready to challenge this law. Hawaii would not pass this law if Obama was really US born....

[machogirl]

What is her “definition” of natural born? He wasn’t “hatched”?
Her definition of “natural born” might say something.

[Texas Fossil]

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 Barrack 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...." (emphasis supplied)

The statement "and is a natural-born American citizen" is an overstatement by Fukino. She is not a lawyer and I am convinced by study that only a child born with both parents being citizens of the U.S. qualifies him as a "Natural Born Citizen", regardless of where he was born. Admittedly BHO does not meet this qualification, unless there is a name other than Barrack H. Obama, Sr. on the birth certificate.

Past that admission, the question of where he really was born is still open. There is not a trace of evidence available to support that he was born in Haiwii.

[Texas Fossil]

Another possible option is that the birth record shows NO Father listed. In that case the question is how do you resolve “Natural Born Citizenship” when the father is “unknown”. Impossible unless someone offers proof of father’s identity.

[dalebert]

audit the fed..

[dalebert]

why? how about investigating banking activity by granny and stanly? how about investigating racial proviling to funnel money to minorities and unions.

[bushpilot1]

natural born citizen is not the same as a citizen. if it were why 'or a citizen' was removed on 7 Sept 1787.. On 4 sept 1787..the words were..natural born citizen or a citizen..were in the draft.. john jay wrote his letter to washington..stating a strong check and a natural born citizen..for CINC.. your valued comments are welcome.. great great grandfather..3rd Tn Cav..or (Lillards) McMinn County

[philman_36]

Oh, it’s an AP article. Never mind. They’re not real reporters.

[philman_36]

You have to love how subtly they did it in AZ. Give 'em the POTUS requirement bill then double whammy them with the immigration bill to get the other out of the news cycle.
Brilliant.

[Cboldt]

-- I've certainly never seen such a statement. Has anyone else here seen it? --

July 27, 2009 Statement by State of Hawaii Health Director Chiyome Fukino

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR

---

CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444

---

For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009

09-063

STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

"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."

[Cboldt]

-- It is unconstitutional to pass a law at the benefit of just one person....its a Bill of Attainder. --

It's unconstitutional to pass a bill that singles out a person for CRIMINAL sanction. That is a Bill of Attainder.

Laws for the benefit of a single person (or a family) are fairly common. They are known as "private laws"

What is the difference between a public and private law?

• Public Laws: Most laws passed by Congress are public laws. Public laws affect society as a whole. Public laws citations include the abbreviation, Pub.L., the Congress number (e.g. 107), and the number of the law. For example: Pub.L. 107-006.
• Private laws: Affect an individual, family, or small group. Private laws are enacted to assist citizens that have been injured by government programs or who are appealing an executive agency ruling such as deportation. Private laws citations include the abbreviation, Pvt.L., the Congress number (e.g. 107), and the number of the law. For example: Pvt.L. 107-006.

IIRC, the issue with the Schiavo case was that Congress was telling the Courts how to do their job, or "to do" a job that they did not want to handle.

On that subject, I think Congress really missed a opportunity to rectify an underlying problem with the civil law system. Civil law is designed to make people whole with money - the stakes are usually not life and death. Given those stakes, the standard of proof is very loose, "more likely than not," also known as "preponderance of the evidence." Further, on appeal, the standard for reversal is very high - "clearly erroneous."

Congress has the power to set standards for civil litigation in federal courts, and it has the power to set standards for a finding, as well as standards for reversal - and it should have done so for cases where the eventual judgment is life and death.

Congress is corrupt, contemptible, and incompetent.

[Uncle Chip]

The bill now goes to Gov. Linda Lingle.

We know what the Hawaiian legislature is composted of, but we will now find out whether Linda Lingle is composted of the same stuff.

[mapmaker77]

IF you want to boycott a state how about dim controlled HI, where unconstitutional acts are legal.

[762X51]

"Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother"

"Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen."

The first statement precludes the second!

[Uncle Chip]

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother.

And what is her definition of "natural born" and where does she get it??? Certainly not from any authoritative source for 200 years of American history, but then again Hawaiians hate American history as much as the Left and Obama does.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

I fail to understand how a state legislature can constitutionally pass a law prohibiting the disclosure of public records of a specific person.

The U.S. Constitution requires all Americans be treated equally under the laws of the states.

[edge919]

There are a couple of weaknesses in your analysis. First, Fukino did not say she saw the original birth certificate. She said in her statement that she saw that the state has it. This could have been done by checking index data or through a query on a database, but not necessarily by a physical inspection of the document.

In her second statement, when she says she saw vital records, there are disconnects between the verbiage in her first statement. Keep in mind that the COLB has prima facie value in a court of law. In other words, it is considered a self-authenticating document. No other record would be needed in order to verify the facts contained on that document. And the COLB, if legitimate, is an abstract of an original birth certificate. Again, Fukino is NOT saying she looked at the original birth certificate, but original vital records, which are not identified in the statement. The original birth certificate, like the COLB, would be self-authenticating. It should contain authenticating signatures and a state seal. If Fukino had to rely on any other vital records to allegedly verify a place of birth, then it had to be because the original birth certificate was insufficient by itself. If that’s the case, then it doesn’t have prima facie value and the COLB would have to be marked to indicate as such.

The other change in Fukino’s two statements was that in the first, she personally verified a fact in accordance with state policies and procedures. In the second, she saw unknown records kept on file (but not in accordance with policies and procedures) for which the documents verify the alleged fact, not the doctor herself. What we’re left with is unknown documents of unknown veracity. Without showing these documents, there’s no way to ascertain the reliability of such documents.

Third, there’s no such legal entity as a ‘natural-born American citizen.’ We are citizens of the United States, not America. Fourth, there are NO vital records maintained by the state of Hawaii that declare anyone to be a “natural-born American citizen.” Either Fukino expressed an unfounded opinion or she stated an outright lie.

[nathanbedford]

Fukino did not say she saw the original birth certificate. She said in her statement that she saw that the state has it.

If one reads the two statements together it is impossible to believe (absent belief in a fraud which I discount) that she did not "see" the original birth certificate-unless one argues that such a birth certificate is not part of the "vital records."

The statement 2 she says that she has seen the vital records. In statement 1 she says that the original birth certificate is maintained as part of the vital records.

The question for me is, what is the provenance of the "original birth certificate" which I have no doubt shows birth in Hawaii and which I further do not doubt reposes among the "vital records." Is that original birth certificate the product of a fraudulent affidavit or application? If so, were the newspaper announcements based upon and generated by the creation of this "original birth certificate?"

I have no quarrel with your observations regarding her conclusion that Obama is a "natural born citizen" as they generally reprise my comments in my reply. When all of this is said and done it goes nowhere under this scenario absent extraneous proof of birth outside of the United States. That is quite a different subject from a definition of natural born citizen which excludes an individual who does not have two American citizens as parents.

[tutstar]

bump