Posted on 05/07/2010 9:01:18 PM PDT by PilotDave
Oaf,
I saw the video. Cooper kept calling the COLB a “Certificate.” I wish that Jensen or the colonel explained the difference between a “Certification” and a “Certificate” to that doofus Cooper.
Also, I believe Jensen should have worked with the colonel ahead of time to answer some questions himself with the caveat to Cooper that if the colonel was about to wander in to territory that might affect his trial, that he would stop him.
I don’t think that Jensen and the colonel came across too well but at least Jensen kept asking about the original birth certificate: “Why wont he release his original birth certificate?”
LTC Lakin still deserves his day in court and I believe he will prevail.... given the opportunity for “Discovery.”
Well I certainly don't disagree with Jim when he slaps you on the hand for spamming, do you???
Bizarre. Is anybody else having that problem?
Pelosi should absolutely be indicted for perjury.
I wonder why no court had any problem with Pelosi perjuring herself.
Wouldn’t you say that is problematic?
Every SOS is supposed to be responsible but you know what the first response was when I mentioned that the DOH rules say any secretary of state could have received a certified copy of Obama’s BC? The first response I heard was that it would have been illegal for any SOS to ASK to see the BC if it wasn’t spelled out exactly in their state’s laws that they had to see it in order to put the name on the ballot.
IOW, just like cops would be charged with racist profiling if they actually took the job of enforcing immigration law seriously (like that sheriff who’s on Janet Napolitano’s bad list).... any Secretary of State who took the logical step of expecting documentation proving eligibility would be hit with a lawsuit and have their hands tied.
That’s because we are a lawless nation. The only people who are truly protected by our laws are the GUILTY. The innocent can be damned, as far as the media, liberal politicians, the communist educational elite, and most of our judiciary goes.
The ranchers whose lands are being overrun and who are being shot for no reason in Arizona aren’t near as important as an illegal immigrant’s potential embarrassment at being asked to show their green card.
A military officer’s right to sleep at night with a good conscience knowing he kept his oath is nothing next to the right of the man holding the nuclear football not being bothered to show the same piece of paper his daughters would have to show to play soccer. It’s asinine.
I have to bite my tongue whenever I say the Pledge of Allegiance, to keep from saying, “With liberty and justice for some”. If it’s only liberty and justice for some, then it’s really liberty and justice for NONE. This regime and all its enablers are the enemies of liberty. And they are the enemies of justice.
I’m glad Lakin is demanding justice.
A judiciary that has no problem with Nancy Pelosi obviously perjuring herself and with secretaries of state letting a Nicaraguan on the ballot and still claiming to have kept their own law requiring eligibility to be verified.... is a perversion of justice. A judiciary that says it’s none of our business if our elected officials are breaking the laws is a perversion of liberty.
Our judiciary is full of perverts. You’ve noted that the court cases have failed. That’s just a statement of fact. But whose fault is it that they have failed? Should they have failed?
Is it really nobody’s business if Roger Calero made it onto the ballot even though he’s from Nicaragua and the NJ and CT secretaries of state are required to verify Constitutional eligibility before placing the names on the ballot? How the heck can a person say those laws make one iota of difference?
Those SOS’s would have put Mickey Mouse on the ballot, just like they let Mickey Mouse vote.... and just like SCOTUS said it was nobody’s business if Ohio’s SOS Jennifer Brunner made a list of DMV and SS non-matches for registered voters as required by law and then refused to let anybody see the list or do anything with it.
Every single voter in Ohio should have standing to sue Jennifer Brunner, since Mickey Mouse could have canceled out any one of their votes. But because Brunner screwed everybody equally nobody had standing. The only way to get away with murder is to murder everybody apparently, because then nobody suffers any particularized harm (how’s that for legal reasoning?) Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
Anyway, what say you about the fact that no court finds any of this worth even checking out?
obumpa
I say that tarring the entire judiciary with the same brush is unwise.
Some of the judges who have heard Obama eligibility lawsuits and ruled against your point of view are decorated US military veterans, even US Marines. They are not “perverts.”
They are honorable men and women who see the law and the facts of this situation differently from you.
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” What is STILL great about our system is that people can keep on trying to get judges and justices to see the issues their way.
To directly answer your Pelosi question, no one has indicted her for perjury because no district attorney, US Attorney or state attorney general believes that there is enough evidence to indict her. I can guarantee you though that there are conservative prosecutors who would LOVE to have a Pelosi pelt on their belt.
Convicting the Speaker of the House of a crime would MAKE a political career.
They pervert justice if they say it is nobody’s business that the laws are broken by our elected officials. And that’s what they’ve said.
Sounds like you have no problem with the condition of this country.
I cannot think of a sadder thing I could have said of you.
Everybody says that AG’s, prosecutors, etc would LOVE to bring down somebody powerful because it would make their career. But I will tell you this: I have given good evidence of multiple crimes by Obama and his people to every level of law enforcement - and nobody will even acknowledge that I contacted them.
You’re operating under an illusion. Name me one person who would have the courage to actually do what you say they would love to do, and I will present my evidence to them and we’ll see what response I get. Deal?
yes an "internet hiccup", my ability to post was throttled by the internet server then it wasn't, repeated attempt to post finally went through.
“a non-certified copy containing only such information as is listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.”which sounds very promising for getting more information. The catch appears to be section 2.2’s limitations and director discretion:
”The Director of Health shall make available for public information current lists of vital statistics events… Only such identifying information for each event shall be included as the Director of Health considers appropriate.”This appears to mean that the non-certified copy available to anyone only contains the data that the director decides should be publicly available. I’ve already seen the DOH site posting what the director says is the allowable public information, which appears to be the “index” information.
There could be a strong case if it were shown that a response to this request for a birth certificate holder other than 0bama resulted in non-certified copy with everything that was present on the certified copy, or if not the full copy, more information. Absent this, the qualifications listed section 2.2 appear to allow the DOH wide latitude in determining what is available on the non-certified “copy.”
I'm not surprised. That's not a judgment on the quality of your evidence.
It's the little boy who cried wolf syndrome. It's what's wrong with the birther movement as a whole.
Maybe I can help. The lawyer is a lawyer, but Anderson Cooper is not a journalist...he is a government propagandist.
Well there you have it. The state controlled media representing the Whitehouse just officially made the claim.
If CNN presents something as blatant as this, it is clearly the official position.
Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB
“forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (pictured) has documented in an associated affidavit (PDF) the following”
I had your same thoughts. But I thought Cooper looked like a a**. He almost refused to let them answer them anything anyway.
I did not realize they had to set up the terms before the interview but I have seen many times attorneys speak for their clients on these shows.
You know what I think? I think this was a setup. I think Cooper was told to try to get Lakin to say something incriminating and cooper was playing tough cop and just get him to say the one line. When he could not get Lakin to talk he got more infuriated.
The point, though, is that they won’t give a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate containing ANY information. They’ve acknowledged that the COLB is their “abbreviated birth certificate” - which means that this is what they, at their discretion, have decided to include on the abbreviated birth certificate. They don’t have the option of making every person’s COLB form different on a whim.
What they DO need to do is redact embarrassing information from both the lists and from the non-certified COLB’s that are available to the public. So an illegitimate birth, for instance, would have the embarrassing information redacted from what is made available to the public. And the parents are able to decline having their address listed as well.
The fact that addresses were printed on the lists to the newspapers but not on the COLB’s tells us that it has been understood all along that the COLB’s and lists may contain different information. Thus, the “in accordance with Section 2.2” doesn’t mean the information included on lists and COLB’s have to be identical but only that whatever is considered too embarrassing to put in a public list is also to be excluded from the public COLB’s.
The name, date, and certificate number were all REQUIRED to be public index data before UIPA was passed in 1988 and are thus not included in any exceptions to disclosure listed in UIPA.
But in any event, if Fukino put out a COLB that hadonly Obama’s name on it, it would be enough to prove that the Factcheck COLB is fake, because it would have to have note of the amendment and would have to have a certificate number. Those items tell the legal status of the BC - which is the reason that the certificate, and not just the index data, is supposed to be available to the public. The public has a right to know whether there is a legally-conclusive birth record for a person. The note of the amendment would show any amendments which disqualify the BC from being legally-conclusive.
And that is precisely what Fukino wants to hide. She is breaking the rules by refusing to print and release a non-certified COLB.
In the national EVVE program (what would be used to check citizenship status, for instance) there is a “void flag” that is placed on records that are not legally conclusive. This is important because anybody can come to America and claim anything, and we have to have a way to show when a claim is questionable.
Although the HDOH refuses to show any records regarding the criteria for flagging a record as void, the laws and rules tell us when a record is defective for legal purposes: if the filing is late or the BC has been amended. Obama’s record almost certainly has a void flag, which means that if anybody checked his citizenship status it would kick back a report saying his documentation needs to be further checked. This may be why cops who tried to do a check on Obama were disciplined; what they would have found through a routine check would tell them right now that he is not qualified to even work at Farmland, much less occupy the White House.
This also tells us exactly how diligent the people in charge of checking his eligibility - even to be a state Senator - have been all down the years.
> “You know what I think? I think this was a setup. I think Cooper was told to try to get Lakin to say something incriminating and cooper was playing tough cop and just get him to say the one line. When he could not get Lakin to talk he got more infuriated.” <
I agree. I think most of the “Alphabet Networks” take their marching orders and talking points from Rahm Emanuel.
The site says:
- (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
- (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
- (c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health. [L 2001, c 246, §1]
A search of the records on file with the Department of Health will only be conducted to process an application requesting either a certified copy or a letter of verification. If the search establishes that the requested record is not on file, you will be notified that no record has been found. No searches of the records on file with the Department of Health will be conducted prior to or outside of the receipt of an application and payment of fees.So while the PDF dated 1961 allows anyone to have (whatever the director wants to include on) a non-certified COLB, the website omits that entirely and limits choices to a certified copy or a letter of verification.
They’ve acknowledged that the COLB is their “abbreviated birth certificate” - which means that this is what they, at their discretion, have decided to include on the abbreviated birth certificate. .
Can you point me to this link or citation? The closest I could find was “short form birth certificate.”
They don’t have the option of making every person’s COLB form different on a whim.
If you do have evidence that different types of information are included on different people’s COLBs, that would be a powerful argument that a journalist should find interesting. Is there such evidence?
What they DO need to do is redact embarrassing information from both the lists and from the non-certified COLB’s that are available to the public. So an illegitimate birth, for instance, would have the embarrassing information redacted from what is made available to the public. And the parents are able to decline having their address listed as well. The fact that addresses were printed on the lists to the newspapers but not on the COLB’s tells us that it has been understood all along that the COLB’s and lists may contain different information. Thus, the “in accordance with Section 2.2” doesn’t mean the information included on lists and COLB’s have to be identical but only that whatever is considered too embarrassing to put in a public list is also to be excluded from the public COLB’s.
Section 2.2 clearly mandates excluding embarrassing information, but appears to give the Director of Health wide latitude in deciding to withhold other information as well. I’m no lawyer, any care to comment?
The name, date, and certificate number were all REQUIRED to be public index data before UIPA was passed in 1988 and are thus not included in any exceptions to disclosure listed in UIPA.
If you link, I’ll take a look.
And that is precisely what Fukino wants to hide. She is breaking the rules by refusing to print and release a non-certified COLB.
Again, are the rules on the original PDF all still in effect? Because the web site is specific of what can be requested – a certified copy or a letter of verification. Is there evidence that non-certified COLBs continue to or have recently been issued to third parties for other holders of Hawaii COLBs? Or has that been superceded by §338-18?
We spent months of hounding the HDOH to even tell us what rules were in effect, because they didn’t have it posted as required by law. It was a major, major victory when somebody forced them to post the rules. When the HDOH refused to send me various things authorized in Public Health Regulations Chapter 8b (the most recent update to the Administrative Rules, which was effected in 1976), I asked them to show me the act repealing PHR and was told that PHR has not been repealed. They are not arguing that the rules are no longer in effect.
They ARE arguing that HRS 338-18 trumps the rules. But HRS 338-18a (the only part in 338-18 which actually deals specifically with certificates) only applies to disclosures that AREN’T authorized by rules or statute. This disclosure is authorized by the rules so 338-18a never applies to it. Because HRS 338-18a specifically defers to the rules, there is no conflict with anything authorized by the rules.
BTW, to change the rules requires an elaborate process of public announcements for hearings, hearings, opportunities for amendments, approval, signing by the governor who lists an effective date, and publishing the new rules. The HDOH has tried to change rules several times in my dealings with them and each time I have asked to see the announcements of the hearings and all the other documentation necessary to actually change the rules.
They wanted to charge $5 for every unique name search for index data, so that a search for a birth record of John Smith, Jon Smith, John A Smith, and John B Smith would cost $20 - and at the end of it you will have “John Smith, male, birth”, with no idea whether it comes from the pending index, late index, or what. All you would know is that they have a piece of paper in their office making some kind of a birth claim for a John Smith.
I pointed out to them the laws which forbade them to change the fees more than (IIRC) 15% without going through the official process. I challenged them and to the very end they claimed they had the right to do it, but somebody made them take down the supposed fee from their website. Instead they just made it so you have to do everything through snail-mail. And someone who sent a snail-mail request for me has never heard back from them on a request sent months ago. They have no proof that they ever sent it so the HDOH can totally ignore it. Nice folks, huh?
When I requested to see a blank form for an abbreviated birth certificate, after much, much hassle, the HDOH eventually sent me a form that matches the COLB. If you’d like to see that e-mail from them I could post it. I think I may actually have it linked on one of my pages on the blog - maybe the one showing that they falsified the communication record in order to suggest that I am mentally ill. Let me know if you want to see just their response.
Just as a point of interest I’ll also add that when I asked them to send me a blank form for a verification in lieu of a certified copy, I was told that they don’t do verifications. And that is required in HRS 338-18, so it’s not just the rules they are willing to break; they are also breaking the statutes. And you will notice that what they have on their website matches neither what they’ve told me nor what is in the law and the rules they illegally hid until November of 2009. That should be problematic to anybody who cares about the rule of law.
2.2 gives wide latitude to the director in determining what information can be made public, but I don’t read this as her being able to say she’ll expose everything about Person A but only give the name of Person B. The director can determine the policy (as long as the embarrassing stuff is protected from public disclosure) but once the policy is in place that’s what she has to follow for everybody. I asked what information was required in order for them to print an abbreviated BC and she listed basically what is on a COLB although noting that a father’s name isn’t required if there isn’t one provided. That is apparently their policy regarding what is supposed to be on an abbreviated BC. Now that they have the policy in place they don’t have the discretion to randomly do something different every now and then.
An example actually came up with this within the last year because one family wanted a COLB printed up that had no races listed. The HDOH refused because that was against their policy. The family sued based on Constitutional issues of freedom of speech (the right to not say more than they want to say), and the HDOH made an exception for them. But it took a lawsuit to get them to make the exception.
There is an OIP Opinion Letter (90-23) which notes that date and certificate number were required as index data in the statute at that time (the most recent revision to HRS 338-18 at that time was from 1977, so at least from 1977 to 1990 the law required the date and cert# to be public). Now HRS 338-18 gives the HDOH director the discretion to decide what data is included as index data but before 1988 the statute actually required the release of date and certificate number. Documentation and analysis of that is at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/birth-certificate-number-must-be-disclosed/
Sorry this is so long. As you look into these things, I hope you will see why I can’t point to just one concise statement made by the HDOH regarding the Factcheck COLB; they contradict themselves, the laws, and the rules in every little detail and it takes months of hounding to get ANYTHING out of them - including things they are required to have on hand to show anybody at any time, which they always say they have no records for.
I have literally spent thousands of hours working just to find what I’ve got right now. What you see on the blog is just the actual RESULTS I got. Nearly every stinkin’ detail took months of blood, sweat, and tears to finally get. I told the OIP last week I’m thinking about charging attorney’s fees for all the hours I’ve spent babysitting them to get them to respond to requests they’ve ignored for months on end. lol.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to take time looking into this.
That’s the hardest part. Obama and the HDOH have been evasive and both have put out false statements as well, so it’s hard to pin anything down with documented facts. That very fact should make people say there’s definitely something rotten that needs to be checked out, but with the media ridicule it actually just makes people give up. I can’t even get conservative bloggers like Allahpundit and Ed Morissey over at HotAir, or Ace at Ace of Spades to so much as consider the evidence I’ve got because they’re tired of the murkiness surrounding the issue. The people Obama pays to go on blogs and muddy the waters have been effective.
Sort of like Sarah Palin. I like Palin, but she can’t say “Hi” without the media blowing purple farts all over the place trying to make it stink wherever Palin is. It shouldn’t be that way. The media should not be able to get away with it. But a person has to choose their battles.
The bad thing is that there are people who will so stink up the place that laws can never be enforced. We see that with the Arizona immigration bill. That was also the case with Illinois’ abortion law which would have required abortion providers to provide care to viable infants who survived abortion. The abortion lobby basically bankrupted the IL government through lawsuits to the point that IL agreed (in the Herbst-O’Malley Agreement) to never enforce their abortion law. Obama claimed that no Born-Alive Infant Protection Act was needed because they already had a law serving that function. What they actually had was a law that Illinois agreed never to enforce. IOW, the only way fully-born infants are legally protected is if a NEW law is passed.
Of course, if that was done, the abortion lawyers would paralyze the government that actually tried to enforce it just like they did with the previous law. The thugs in America know that it doesn’t matter what laws are passed, as long as there are ways to keep it from ever being enforced.
That’s another reason why I say we are in a crisis because we have no law enforcement. We are a nation without effective laws because lawless lawyers make sure the laws can never be enforced. Lawyers like Obama and his ilk. If we can’t win these challenges to the rule of law the nation is history.
I should clarify: it is the HDOH that I’ve had to babysit, not the OIP.
Although I spoke with somebody from the OIP and explained that I had 4 separate e-mails to the OIP in the past get “lost” so that I wasted a month on waiting for answers to requests they say they never received (though my ISP says if I didn’t get an “Undeliverable” notice the e-mails would only get lost if they were blocked by the OIP) - so I’ve requested responses from them letting me know they’ve received my e-mails. Everything he suggested I do, I told him I’ve already done and they will not respond to me.
Finally I asked if I have to call their office every time in order to find out if they got my e-mails and he said it sounds like that’s what it would take because they told him they just don’t do courtesy responses like that. I know they (and some blessed substitute worker at the HDOH once) have responded to a “Read” request in the past so I know they get the little note on their screen asking if they want to send a “Read” receipt. It takes no more time to click “Yes” than to click “No” so it is obviously sheer spite that keeps them from doing so.
That’s the kind of people we’re working with here.
And they call US “vexatious”!
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.