Fukino & TerriK

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:

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.

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.

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?

LOL! Good questions all! Hope we get discovery and we can solve some of these missing document puzzles.
From the Common Worship Lectionary for Sunday, Oct. 4, Morning Prayer: Luke 12:2 — “Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.”
Pray for Judge Carter!

Vattel is giving his opinion which certainly has a great deal of authority for the Founders. However, it still is only that and is not part of the Constitution. And the way he gives his opinion seems to suggest that there are other legitimate views.

Given that Blacks’s does not give a definition of “native born” just “native” leads me to the conclusion that the concept “native born” is not different, in point of law, from natural born as has been applied in US law.

This is even worse than expected for being in a murky realm of the law. I just checked Black’s definition of “citizen” under American law and did not find the term “native-born” or “natural-born”. Only the terms “naturalized” or “born” which also substantiates my conclusion that there is no significant difference between “born in” and “natural-born”. Certainly as applies to the qualifications for the presidency it has never been before a court.

There is also no doubt that the determination of a child’s citizenship through the father has no validity under today’s law.

This is a fascitating line of conversation from many perspectives and shows a great deal of light on social relations among other issues.

There is no requirement of birth on native soil for the son of two US citizens serving at the behest of the US government out of the country to be a natural born citizen.

The idea that he would not is a mockery of the views of the Founders. Since allegiance is primary in determination of citizenry there is no allegiance higher than of the parent who is following his nation’s orders as was McCain’s.

It is ridiculous to believe that ANY of the Founders would have supported such a twisted view. Your hatred of a national hero is not good legal underpinning for a theory.

Legal theory of the time clearly references the offspring of the officers of the king or state as being full citizens of the sovereignty when born aboard. Many of these reached the highest levels of government and society in the history of Europe confirming this view.

My questions are fairly clear though a point made by another will generate another unconsidered question.

My view is extremely simple. If Urkle was born in Hawaii he is eligible. I have no idea if he was and am cognizent of contrary prima facia information.

Educate us where deficient.

Urkle’s trips to Kenya can have another interpretation: attempting to development expertise wrt Africa and its countries which is certainly how he would phrase it. Now we know he was meddling in Kenyan political affairs to the benefit of his family but nobody cares about that.

Having love for another country or hate for one will not disqualify him or anyone else from the presidency. At the Founding many of those fighting for Independence were citizens of England, Poland, France etc. Since the option was left in the Constitution for those here 14 yrs prior to ratification of becoming president I have no doubt that just having a love of one’s country of birth was no disqualification. So that ain’t getting Urkle out.

We can probably agree that he basically hates the US but it will not be provable or, outside actual provable treason, sufficient to remove him from the office. At any rate, I would say up to 25% of the population also hates this nation.

Interpretation of what the Constitution means is nothing new nor outside the constitutional mechanism. Not liking certain rulings does not mean the process of getting to them was inappropriate.

Congressional discussion at the proposal of the 14th indicates clearly that children born to illegals were not to be considered citizens.

Like much of the law of that period Vattel has been superceded in many respects including what constitutes citizenship.

As I said above Black’s does not even have a definition or distinction within “citizen” which creates more than two class of citizen: natural born and naturalized.

But, you are correct, there is NO question under VAttel that McCain is fully qualified to be president.

Those statements are not confirmed under law. As I said Black’s does not define “native born” as being anything different than “natural born”.

Congress is given the authority under the Constitution to create the mechanism to become a naturalized citizen.

Urkle’s fraud machine has been in my sights for long before he was heard of on a national scene. The whole crew surrounding him is my enemies. Emanual was my representative and Ayers I have been aware of since 1968 and his brother.

I watched him get his opponents disqualified when they ran against him. Including his Senate seat where a outstanding Republican candidate was run out because of an alledged sex scandel the “evidence” of which was in SEALED court records of a divorce. The Chicago Tribune sued to have them unsealed and a California court did it.

Now it never occurred to me that he would run for the presidency if not qualified. Murder, theft, embezzlement, extortion sure.

Yes, that appears to be the case.

I do not defend it on common sense or any other grounds.

If you are born here and claim you are a citizen no further action is necessary you are indeed a citizen. Hence millions of “anchor babies”. Until the courts rule otherwise this appears to be the case.

My understanding is that Barack was born when Ann was still 17.

Your points do have some merit. However, I disagree with your conclusions.

As you mentioned, Vattel states his opinions and well founded reasoning in ‘The Law of Nations’, which I believe ties together much of British Common Law, common sense, and sound reasoning. Even though there may have been other legitimate views, they were not put forth in one authoritative tome such as his (at least not that of which I am aware) and thus, IMO, not as likely to have been widely relied upon by the Founding Fathers and legal scholars of that time.

I believe, sir, that if we were opposing counsel in a pertinent case on this subject, we would have a grand ol’ time. It would be interesting to see how the judge would rule. (Of course I would first have to get a law degree and pass the Bar, LOL.)

Congress is given the authority under the Constitution to create the mechanism to become a naturalized citizen.

But they were not given the power to define "natural born citizen". The statutes do not mention "natural born". The only that did was the 1790 immigration law, which was repealed and replaced by the 1795 law, which dropped the words "natural born" when speaking of persons born outside the US of citizen parents. Why did they change it? Well, although I don't know, and probably no one else does either, I speculate that they figured out they could not redefine a Constitutional term under their power to define an uniform rule of naturalization. Which by the way, was the title of both the 1790 and 1795 acts, "An Act to Define an Uniform Rule of Naturalization".

The Founder with whose life I am most familiar is Alexander Hamilton. His legal study (he took three months to study for the bar when normally it took three yrs.) was Vattel, Puffendorff, Locke, Blackstone, Berlamaqui, Montesquieu, Grotius, and Postlethwayte as well as the rulings of English Common law. Since Hamilton was the best lawyer in the country I cannot say that others learned their lessons as well as he.

It is possible that the Congressional Record could shed light on your questions. BTAIM certainly Congress could define “natural born” in opposition to naturalized if it desired to do so. And it could reference a standard definition as being accepted, say Vattel or Blackstone or Coke. It is common for a word or words to be defined in a law "...for the purposes of this Act."

Yes, if they are born here they are citizens. But, it was not always so. It took the 14th amendment to make this happen. So, it required a statute to make them citizens and it did not make them natural born citizens, it made them citizens by statute.

According to wikipedia and other bios I’ve seen, Ann was born Nov 29, 1942. That means she would be 19 years old in Nov 1961. Barack was supposed to have been born Aug 4, 1961, a few months before she turned 19.

Michelle Obama, said in a speech that Barack’s mother was “very young and very single when she had him.” So, I don’t know how reliable the above info is regarding the birthdates of Barack and his mother.

Do you mean that you agree with me that if a person is here illegally, or as a foreign student on visa, or as a foreign tourist visiting the US... any children born here of them are not meant to be US citizens by our Constitution?

It is my opinion, the words “subject to US jurisdiction” keeps those born here under these circumstances from being recognized as US citizens.

None of the people above are subject to our jurisdiction for the purposes of extending citizenship. They are only temporarily subject during their stay. Then only to obeying our laws while here. Unless, they seek a legal way to remain here and become citizens, they are not subjecting themselves to US jurisdiction.

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.