Posted on 05/24/2012 8:20:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion
What the Hawaii AG forced Bennett to do to his request for verification:
1. Withdraw the whole form he submitted. Because the form had no special directions, HRS 338-14.3 would require the HDOH to verify the accurate, legally-probative facts, and HI can't do that for Obama because his birth record is late and amended - and thus not legally probative as per HRS 338-17.
2. Keep the request for verification that asked the HDOH to verify what is on Obama's birth record. The HDOH can do that without claiming that any of those CLAIMS on the BC are actuallly accurate or legally valid.
3. Change the request from asking for verification that what Obama posted online is a "true and accurate representation of the record on file" - to asking if the INFORMATION on what Obama posted matches what is on file. This is necessary because what Obama posted is an ABSTRACT or composite of what is typed (the incomplete BC) and what is "actually written down" (the affidavits to support the late and amended filing). And it lacks the notations that it was late and amended.
This is why they had to C&P the document. The stamps on the real thing (the non-forged version, if they have one, at the HDOh) would have filled the empty space toward the top of the BC, and the notation of what evidence was submitted to support the late filing and amendment were right in the area where the seal was supposed to go.
I'd post the article which shows the documentation, but I don't know how to post a PDF. And I'd try to get this as a blogger post that serves as a new article in the special category in News/Acivism as per the new policy, but I don't know how to do that either. I'll ask for help from the mods.
In the first comment I'll give a clickable link to the article showing the documentation.
You missed my point.
Arizona has Constitutional power.
The Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV Section 1 gives Arizona the right to access Hawaii's public records.
The Supremacy clause of Article VI overrides Hawaii's laws on the matter of Arizona's access.
-PJ
Is there any way I could get help from you two, to put the pieces together so we can end up with HTML code to put into a post here at FR that results in the equivalent of the PDF I posted on my blog?
On the actual post on my blog (that links to the PDF) I added 3 more links - to support the claims that Bennett had to change his request in order to get a response from HI (other than that he hadn’t proven he was eligible to get a verification). So if I could add that it would be great. I could add it to the Word document I used to create the PDF and then save it as a different PDF and post that, or you guys could insert it or whatever.
I am such a computer moron.
Thanks for any help you can give me.
Routine response? Show me where "routine response" is defined in Hawaii statutes.
That was not a routine request to which HRS 338-14.3 refers
338-14.3 does not refer to a routine request.
338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.Bennett received:
(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.
a) the "verification of the existence of a certificate" per the above-underlined text of 338-14.3
No, ma'am. They did not. Nowhere in any of the email communication did anyone from Hawaii indicate in any manner, implied or otherwise, that Bennett must drop any part of his request. That is absolutely 100% factually incorrect. Bennett reworded his request on May 17th to provide the legal justification for which Hawaii asked. He did not drop any part of his March 30th request.
that is NOT a request to verify the truthful facts of the birth. And Onaka told him what was on that document - certified that this is what was on the document. Nowhere did he say that the document was legally valid.
Onaka does not have to state that the original vital record on file is legally valid because 338-14.3 stipulates that as a matter of law.
(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.You have to recognize the difference between an official verification and what Bennett asked for.
There is NO difference. 338-14.3 stipulates exactly what will be provided and that what is provided is a certification of the event and the facts. That is, by any legal definition, an "official verification."
specifically stated that those were to be items FROM THE RECORD - which is different than verifying that those items are the LEGALLY TRUE FACTS?
No, ma'am. There is no legal difference. See 338-14.3 section (b) as quoted above. The Verification is a certification of the "legally true facts."
It does not give them the explicit right to physically inspect original records on file. I don't know where you got that idea.
He isn’t according to my understanding of NBC. But IANAL.
Is there any way I could get help from you two, to put the pieces together so we can end up with HTML code to put into a post here at FR that results in the equivalent of the PDF I posted on my blog?
On the actual post on my blog (that links to the PDF) I added 3 more links - to support the claims that Bennett had to change his request in order to get a response from HI (other than that he hadn’t proven he was eligible to get a verification). So if I could add that it would be great. I could add it to the Word document I used to create the PDF and then save it as a different PDF and post that, or you guys could insert it or whatever.
I am such a computer moron.
Thanks for any help you can give me.
Can there be a “verification” that is not the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” that HRS 338-14.3 is talking about?
For instance, if I say to the HDOH, “Please verify this name and date of birth from Obama’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”: Barack Hussein Obama II, Aug 4, 1961”, would that be the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” to which HRS 338-14.3 refers?
If the HDOH verified that name and birth date - after I had specifically stated that it was supposed to be from a legally-invalid COHB - would HI’s verification of those items from the COHB actually certify that Obama was TRULY born on Aug 4, 1961? Or would they be certifying that they have a COHB which claims that?
I should have pinged you to this one. Sorry.
OK, one other question: Have you even read the PDF? I gave my reasoning for how we know that Bennett dropped the request on the actual form, and it never claimed that the requirement to drop the actual request form was in the emails.
Bennett said he got what he had asked for and he clearly did NOT get what he originally asked for. On the form he submitted he asked for “C = legally valid”. What he got was A=B. And that was regarding the critical pieces of information for determining Presidential eligibility.
Not that I can find anywhere in Hawaii statues. One can ask for a certified copy of various types of certificates or a verification in lieu of a certified copy.
Not that I can find anywhere in Hawaii statues. One can ask for a certified copy of various types of certificates or a verification in lieu of a certified copy.
Check your Freepmail for further instructions.
Cheers
That sounds to me like physical access is allowed for, if the Framers gave Congress to power the prescribe the manner to determine how such records are proved. In the absence of Congress acting, who's to say that Arizona can't decide on its own how Hawaii's records are proved? The 10th Amendment will allow Arizona to act, with Articles IV and VI on its side.
So here's how it works out.
1. Arizona claims "full faith and credit" to prove Hawaii's records for itself.
2. Hawaii refuses.
3. Arizona goes to the Supreme Court to force Hawaii to comply with full faith and credit because SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in matters between States.
4. SCOTUS will kick it Congress because the Constitution provides for another remedy before SCOTUS is compelled to act.
5. Congress waffles because it's an election year. The House looks at it but Boehner goes soft. Reid in the Senate says "full faith and what?"
6. Arizona, asserting itself as a sovereign goes back to Hawaii and demands that in the absence of Congress exercising his check and balance to lay out the manner of proving the public record, says that it still has full faith and credit power to inspect the records and goes back to SCOTUS.
7. SCOTUS...?
-PJ
I know I am probably not near as smart as you but there are a few things that seem probable to me.
This fellow Onaka seems to have said that, yes, we have a file. And he said certain info in their file matches what is in the WH PDF. And it just might. And that file may only contain what grandma provided along with an affidavit swearing the info was true, whether it is or not. Just as the newspaper notifications contained info grandma provided, true or not (almost certainly not). And that may be the “vital record”. And it may be false as hell. But it is their record.
Onaka also went to great length NOT to say the PDF was an official legal document provided by the State of Hawaii, because it probably isn't. But Hawaii probably has many false “vital records” and they would rather not go there.
So they did a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants and hoped it would just go away. And tried real hard not to make any sworn false statements as they did so.
We know (if you can believe anything Barry ever said) Barry was adopted and his name changed, and that never came up in any of this.
So Onaka did say certain thing in the PDF match their record, not including the date of birth. He did not say what doesn't match, or even that the PDF is a real document.
BDZ
There was this in the response:
5. Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
So far as I know Kapiolani has never claimed this to be true, and sure has never bragged that the first POTUS from Hawaii was born in their facility.
I have read that they have no such record and really don't want to discuss it.
The fact enough American’s do not DEMAND Obama show absolute proof of his eligibility and other records is just tragic apathy!
It’s tragic Alinskyism, not apathy. Anyone questioning is carefully, consistently, and conscientiously MOCKED TO WITHIN AN INCH OF HIS LIFE.
Thus joe and Jill public assume that there is nothing to see here; that even questioning is ridiculous. Literally.
Alinsky was right. Most people would rather be beaten up than mocked.
Yes, I read it. I disagree with your conclusions. Bennett did not drop any part of his request and he did get everything he asked for and more.
Yes, the form to request a certified copy of the birth certificate includes the date and place of birth and the parents’ names. (It also includes gender, which you have not mentioned.) That information is required so the HDoH can uniquely identify the birth certificate for which the verification is being requested.
338-14.3 stipulates that the applicant will receive a verification of the existence of a certificate. If Bennett had submitted only that one form, he likely would have received a verification limited to: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” And according to section (b) of 338-14.3, that verification would certify the event itself and the facts supplied on the form. 338-14.3 does not require the HDoH to restate the data submitted on the form.
338-14.3 does, however, require the HDoH to specifically verify “any other” information supplied, which they did. So had Bennett specifically included the date and time of birth, parents’ names, and gender with the other 10 items he requested, he likely would have gotten specific verification for those individual items.
Bennett didn’t ask specifically for verification of the name of the delivering physician, but he got a verification for it nonetheless when he asked them to verify that the WH LFBC was a true and accurate representation of the original vital record. Hawaii responded that the information (all of it by implication) matches what is on file in their original. So they verified the name of the delivering physician and everything else on the LFBC.
This pees me off!! Mods, Butterdezillion is EXACTLY the kind of conservative sleuth with original research that could save this nation. Please post this in the original op Ed research sidebar immediately!!
This is important stuff that must not get crumpled into the bottom of the fr bin. It may be hard to understand but that is only because the corruption involved here by the Hawaiian officials is that devious. It’s worth the efforts of important people to understand this and disseminate it.
Obama is counting on us NOT SPREADING THESE FACTS. Please post it in the right place.
I will stipulate that that could very well be the case. As an aside, we have established that Obama does not have a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Hawaii released a list of those and the names Obama, Soetoro, and Dunham were not on it. (Post & Email has it, I think.)
I tend to think that if Grandma supplied Kapiolani as the place of birth that the registrar would not have accepted and filed the BC without verification directly from the hospital and/or the delivering physician, but who really knows? We can only speculate. Hawaii has probably committed much fraud with respect to birth certificates because more citizens equates to more federal dollars. I don't believe Hawaii is innocent in all of this.
Did Fukino ever “verify” that they had a birth certificate for Obama - as reported in just about every news report in the country? Like in her announcements? What were those, anyway? Where in the statutes does it cover those press releases? How does it describe them?
I *think* that if Congress has not specifically provided for “physical inspection” that SCOTUS would defer to Hawaii’s laws regarding access because the records belong to Hawaii not Arizona.
But, I could be totally wrong because the federal courts recently forced Louisiana to modify one of their original vital records to include the names of a gay couple as the adoptive parents on a new birth certificate for an adoption that took place in New York. (Louisiana does not allow gay couples to adopt.)
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.