Posted on 10/02/2009 3:35:27 PM PDT by MissTickly
President Obama's original birth certificate was "record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but his vital records were "maintained on file."
Oct,31, 2008: “...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..."
July 27, 2009: "“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.”
July 27, 2009, I asked this question of the Hawaiian DoH: "Is the 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, able to state they have verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama's AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
A careful parsing of words seems necessary because one COLB can say this: "Filed by Registrar" While another can say this: "Accepted by Registrar" Despite what you read online, or see presented by anonymous people that you've never met and you don't know-Hawaii must explain what this means. It's a procedural question that I cannot get an answer to. Why?
The last I communicated to Dr. Fukino, on October 1st, I wrote her the following, and she has not responded to correct any mischaracterizations. Please take note of that:
Dr. Fukino--
Per your press release statement on July 27, 2009, are you telling us that, in part, you saw "vital records" that include some kind of a representation of a stated "filed" and threfore pending application for an amended/corrected Birth Certificate (it was on file, not on record) and evidence filed to support an amendment/correction, but that evidence was still pending approval on July 27, 2009? I am sorry for the characterizations I give in lieu of knowing the legal jargon. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized anything.
I am finally realizing I really need to understand what 'on file' and 'filed with the registrar' means compared to "accepted by registrar" and "on record." Can you help me understand or direct me to one of your staff for explanation? If you don't already know--a woman has presented her own "filed with registrar" type COLB that she asserta represents a normal, indexed-at-birth, run of the mill Hawaiian birth certificate to natural parents with all information in pristine, original condition.
Is that possible? Should a record like I just described typically say "Accepted by Registrar?"
I have requested from the AG library archive, the opinion letter that I believe sets out the procedures for filing an application for an amended birth certificate. But I have not received it yet. If the DoH is able to provide a copy--please do.
If you meant for people to understand you in July, and if I am understanding things correctly without having the necessary AG letter. Woman, I seriously underestimated you. I want people like you working for government.
I don't know what you can answer that I just asked, if anything. But, if you can correct any mischaracterizations about policy and procedure--please do.
I am giving pause to all of this. You have been very candid, I believe. I just was too blind to see that you put it all out there for anyone paying attention. You've been as fair as can be to BOTH sides of this issue from what I can discern.
Thank you. T.
*
And I brought my question from July 27, 2009 full circle:
Aloha Dr. Fukino,
Please use THIS version of my questions. So very sorry--I am struggling with the difference between the words "on file" and "on record." I am going to go with "on record." I realize I might have to resubmit at some point with the "on file" language.
If you would please answer the following questions for me per your statement on July 27, 2009:
“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.”
On July 27, 2009 per your issued statement, did you personally verify that the "vital records" you saw were NOT maintained on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?
On July 27, 2009 per your issued statement, did the Registrar of Vital Statistics personally see and verify that the "vital records" you saw were NOT maintained on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?
Thank you for your continued patience on this issue. If you would please answer the two questions above separately--that would be ideal. I am afraid that a blending of the answers will muddy your efforts to be forthcoming with the public. If you have already been forthcoming--that effort should be recognized and not distorted.
Sincerely, T.
*
CONCLUSIONS? Was the President's Natural Born Citizenship verified with a long form birth certificate, an application to amend his birth place and insufficient pending evidence of that amendment? On July 28th, did Congress sell us out with a Resolution that declared that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961?
Did Congress provide the 'evidence' to amend the President's Birth Place.
Get answers from Hawaii. If need be, get answers from Congress.
Thanks for letting me post here FR.=)
The record shows obama was adopted by his Indonesian father. So he would have an amended birth certificate if that was the case.
Miss Tickly,
Am I correct to presume the following? Thank you in advance.
1. If the birth certificate has been amended, the last amendment is considered by the Hawaii DOH to be the original.
2. That would make possibly 3 birth certificates.
A. The one at birth
B. The one amended when adopted
C. The amended one showing Obama as father again
Hawaii birth certificates show at the bottom if they have been amended. Why does the one Obama produced not show any amendments?
MHG,
Thank You! That helps me understand a little better.
“Are you certain that there are any fees associated with changing/amending a record. It would be in the interest of the state to have accurate records so they may not exist.”
I was told twice by the OIP that the agency should inform me they don’t exist.
The notice of requester I received has the box listed and unchecked. (box)’The agency does not maintain the records you requested’
I am sure they exist. They cited HRS 338-18 to deny me access. That statute cover vital records and related material according to them.
They exist alright.
“1. If the birth certificate has been amended, the last amendment is considered by the Hawaii DOH to be the original.”
No, the original (or supplementary adopted BC) would be marked through the incorrect info, the corrected info would be written in. And it would be stamped or mark ‘amended’ and endorsed.
An accepted and recorded amended record is just a edited original BC.
Does that help?
Are you saying you know this or think this is true? I think it’s likely more than one alteration/adoption has occurred.
Who knows what all has gone on...
Fukino never says she saw the original BC in OCT.2008. Only that she saw it was on record.
Is that because it is a sealed original? I think yes. She isn’t allowed to see an original sealed BC.
School records in Indonesia showed him with his mother second husband’s name - Soerto and the record classified him as Indonesian. That is why I think the birth cert. was amended when Obama was adopted by his step dad.
His mom might have fibbed and told the school he was Soerto’s son and an Indonesian in order to get him in the school when he was not. Who the heck knows for sure! But as you are getting clues that the birth certificate was amended, I would suspect it was for adoption.
I’m beginning to wonder if Dr. Frankenstein had a 20th century project. Or he was beamed in from an alien ship.
RE the two parent issue: Not that it is definitive, but w/ Clinton, Obama, McCaskill ‘vetted’ McCain, the language specified TWO US citizen parents. IIRC, Obama tried to change it to one and failed.
So, even if he was born in Hawaii AND the parents were not married, it seems like there is a good case for Obama lacking Natural Born Citizen status, although he would be a native born citizen. [I hope for change in the Executive office!]
Miss Tickly,
Then at least the one he produced should show his adoption? I am on your side that there is a load of dung in all of this!!
Please consider that the founding fathers drew upon their education, classical studies, common sense, and referenced many philosophical works. Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” [1758], a contemporary treatise on the natural rights and responsibilities of nations, would have been one such source.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
BOOK I.
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The question about whether Barry Soetoro’s adult use of Indonesian citizenship (perhaps dual citizenship) would or would not nullify NBC status if he ever had it is interesting, but I think that the coverup is about this very scenario. He knows that if it can be shown that he had and used Indonesian citizenship on into his adult years, and has been trying to cover up the fact, he is finished, whether he is technically NBC or not. Zero credibility. I think the current obfuscation we are seeing from HI DOH is due to the fact that his BC is amended and shows Lolo and Ann as the parents of Barry Soetoro.
btt
Bingo!
Really, how did you come to that conclusion???
Why did McLame need a special Senate resolution???
You can get that answer on Leo’s site!!!
btt
That was not my intent but followed from the comments wintertime made in response to my comment to another poster. I will not accept accusations attacking my motives from him or anyone else. Particularly when he ignored the genesis of the comment and turned it into something it was not.
And there was plenty of other comments centered on the main subject made by posters not attacking me.
Your comment wrt to the Judge shows just what kind of problem we are dealing with as regards citizenship. It is that kind of imprecision which has allowed millions of anchor babies to become citizens.
There is also a problem with positing two kinds of natural-born subjects.
Sounds like a direct question “Are there any fees associated with amending a birth certificate?” needs to be asked. Apparently the state is not volunteering any information not directly asked.
It might also be helpful to have a Hawaii native attempt to amend their BC without including any fees to see what happens.
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.