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.=)
Others have posted why that is not true. I doubt there was any marriage so he would be a natural-born son of the unwedded mother if born in Hawaii. According to Black’s there is no legal definition of “native born” merely “native” which includes natural-born.
UIPA only cover records requests, not information.
I don’t know the protocol to force them to answer questions. They ARE NOT forthcoming. I suspect there’s unfair pressure on them.
While it is certainly true that Vattel, Blackstone, and English Common law formed the basis of the Founders legal education it is also true that they changed the nature of the legal system into a uniquely American one.
Your quote indicates Vattel equated “native born and natural born” which is something I suspected from the lack of a definition of the former in Black’s.
The likely unmarried status of Urkle’s parents complicates this even further and, as another poster indicated, his bastardy means his mother’s status was the ruling one IF he was born in Hawaii.
He didn’t that was the Democrats idea and was used to cover for Urkle.
Said resolution has NO legal bearing on anything since it is not a law just puffery.
I don’t believe the Republicans went along with any of it.
The definition of Natural-born makes it clear that children born to citizens (Johnnie boy’s parents were) even outside the country are natural-born.
Nothing would be more absurd than for military personnel to be ordered outside the US and their children become second class citizens. In any case the Canal Zone was US property at the time of his birth.
That is why it may be necessary to actually have someone try and amend a certificate without paying any fee.
Generally state agencies are very upfront about any fees which must be paid.
I asked them for receipts and invoices. They aren’t significant to privacy.
They denied my request saying they were.
I would really have to trust that someone. I want answers from Hawaii. Not an unknown online. We’ve already been fooled once this way.
“That is why it may be necessary to actually have someone try and amend a certificate without paying any fee.
Generally state agencies are very upfront about any fees which must be paid.”
Thanks. I remember reading that argument. My understanding was that at 18 you had an extra 3 years to decide. I will look it up.
Vattel’s definition refers to “natives”, not native-born. Native-born is indicative of country or place of birth, not citizenship. For example: one born in the US to parents who are British and not US citizens would not be considered British native-born but could be considered US native-born, and would be a British citizen at birth, not a US citizen.
In other words, to be considered a native or natural-born citizen of a country, the birth parents must be citizens of that place or country in which the birth takes place.
Vattel then clarifies how citizenship of a child is determined (if not a native, or natural-born citizen) with further reasoning:
“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.” This is especially important when the mother is a citizen of a different country than the father.
However, your point, that in cases where the father is truly unknown then citizenship would necessarily follow the mother, is valid. In this case, a claim of natural-born citizen would be difficult to prove or disprove if BHO was actually born in Hawaii (using the accepted definition from Vattel).
OTOH, if the father is known but not legally married to the mother (for example, being listed as such on the birth certificate), then citizenship would follow the father. The citizenship status might be contested judicially in this case, and/or dual citizenship might be determined or granted, but no valid claim of natural-born citizen could be made.
[Side note: please use hyphens when discussing “native-born” and “natural-born”. I believe this to be the more correct way to properly refer to these issues.]
I think you mean...
“Date Accepted by State Registrar” v. “Date Filed by Registrar”
The messiah only has the later 4-word phrase on his supposed COLB, indicating there was something 'fishy' about his original birth record that prevented it from getting the full "STATE Registrar" certification.
According to Leo it does NOT expire at all!!!
Why did McLame needs a e Senate resolution???
U.S. soil.
You may not like this:
The Panama Canal Zone (Spanish: Zona del Canal de Panamá) was a 553 square mile (1,432 km2) territory inside of Panama, consisting of the Panama Canal and an area generally extending 5 miles (8.1 km) on each side of the centerline, but excluding Panama City and Colón, which otherwise would have fallen in part within the limits of the Canal Zone.!
John McLame was born In the Colon Hospital!
He does NOT meet the soil!!
Had he been elected there would have been thousands of law suits about his none NBC!!!
English and grammer were my worst subjects.
natural-born vs. natural born
How does the hyphen impact the meaning of the word group?
The constitution uses natural born Citizen
Miss Tickly-your original question may have merit.
A original birth certificate (need not be from Hawaii) is on record. That document is of a type that must be stored as a record.
The vital records on file.
Perhaps, documents supporting original records are in themselves not records but simply on file?????
From a legal wording point of view, on record could be very different from on file.
Also, the Registrar was cut out of the second news release. Is the Registrar the only one to vouch for data on Record?
I have followed this topic on both FR and Leo and back to FR. Consolidate your thinking and your questions. You are enraptured by the sound of your own voice. You ask questions that you need to find the answers too and if you don’t then ask a different question. Stop relaying on others for their answers, their time, their research, it’s lazy and indicates you’re not sincere. Do the work, walk the walk, or move along. You’re wasting my time.
“John McLame was born..!”
Shame on you, it’s Senator John McCain and until proven differently he deserves respect. I did not and would not vote for him as president.
You asked “How does the hyphen impact the meaning of the word group?”
You are correct that the Constitution does not use the hyphen between natural and born.
However, I believe that the use of a hyphen connects the two words in a way which indicates that a specific condition must exist, separate and apart from the meaning of each individual word, in order to properly use the term natural-born. Thus, using a hyphen would be more clearly indicative and proper to refer to that specific condition.
(This is my personal belief and preference which may or may not be shared by others.)
Without the hyphen, the phrase ‘natural born’ could be interpreted as the manner in which a child is born, such as through the birth canal instead of by c-section.
Then what is your problem, did you just signed up today to tell us that???
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.