Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
I've updated my blog to include the e-mail from Janice Okubo confirming that they assign birth certificate numbers in the state registrar's office and the day they do that is the "Date filed by state registrar".
The pertinent portion from Okubo's e-mail:
In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.
MY SUMMARY: As you can see, Okubo said that the “Date filed by the State Registrar” is the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office).
There are no pre-numbered certificates. A certificate given a certificate number on Aug 8th (Obama’s Factcheck COLB) would not be given a later number than a certificate given a number on Aug 11th (the Nordyke certificates).
There is no way that both the date filed and the certificate number can be correct on the Factcheck COLB. The COLB is thus proven to be a forgery.
LOL! bp2’s getting better. He’s not posting monkey pictures everytime. I have an extrinsic evidence/impeachment question floating around this thread that may come to life. I wonder....
parsy, who is typing with one hand
This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.
Wong wasn't pronounced a natural born by the Justice GrAy because it was obvious he was not and only that he was a "native" born. At least your little Indiana court admitted to that fact that the Supreme Court did not say he was an NBC. Other than that, the Indiana court is just dead wrong like you. The Wong opinion created a whole new class of citizens the anchor babies by disregarding the original intent of the 14th Amendment Furthermore, the silly Indiana court if it had properly researched Supreme Court set precedent, it would not have embarrassed itself with opinionated dribble. Their liberal predisposition and lack of internal fortitude was just too overwhelming for them to ignore.
As an example, Ms Hand Purse, below is the Supreme Court declaring a citizen of the US under the 14th Amendment:
- - - --- - - - - -
Kawakita v. United States
No. 570
Argued April 2-3, 1952
Decided June 2, 1952
343 U.S. 717
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
-snip-
At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law.
-snip-
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was
convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932.
First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97.
-end snip-
- - - - - - -
This is a clear cut example to what is a native born v. a natural born citizen according to the concordance and usage of the Supreme Court. You'll further note Kawakita was a duel citizen and therefore noway this guy with duel allegiances could ever be an natural born citizen.
It's no denying it, your Indiana court opinion that you cherish sooooo much is all poppycock in the words of a fellow Obot of yours.
Interesting. I don’t have time right now to compare the lists and determine who the anomaly was, but we should find out and see if it did appear in a subsequent list. Those lists, at first glance, appear to be identical in order and detail, as they should be if received from the same source.
There are all kinds of possibilities for the missing birth, including a typesetting error. One entry would not likely be cut for space, especially when it takes up only two lines in tiny 6? pt. type.
These vital stats were published next to the classifieds, which are paid ads, in the same small typeface. Perhaps there was an opt-in when the official paperwork was filled out, maybe a small fee to have the birth published, and one family said no to the Advertiser? Strange hypothesis.
Newspapers charge for everything now, even obits. The internet (not politics as some would claim) is killing them, because there is little need for newspaper advertising any more when you can do it virtually for free online. However, in 1961, newspapers were thriving and could afford to give free space. We need to find out whether that was the case in Hawaii.
You’re not processing, curiosity. Nobody “forgot” anything. The response was double-checked by the director of the OIP, whose specific task was to find out if the answer was correct.
He said it was.
Give up the “It was a mistake” mantra. On two different requests - both checked for accuracy and appropriateness by the OIP - an amendment and/or original certificate completed via supplementary documents was confirmed. And they have stood by that answer for 6 months now - even as it’s been posted publicly that this confirms that Obama’s BC is not prima facie evidence.
They’re changing laws to try to get rid of “vexatious requestors”. It’s not like they don’t know what is being said. When there have been mistakes in their reasons in the past they have corrected them. Not so on either of these crucial requests.
Furthermore, within the past week my understanding has been further supported from inside the Hawaii government, although we’ve decided not to post that communication in order to protect the innocent.
It is not me who looks stupid.
The CDC report is based on 50% of the totals.
Honolulu proper had a total of 8268 births, so this would be a more reasonable number to break down for births published in Honolulu papers.
The hospital directory information to which you refer is for current patients and does not apply to patiens who have been deceased for many years.
A deceased person’s medical records are still protected under HIPAA and still require a waiver from a legal representative of the deceased before being released. The hospital cannot automatically tell a private investigator that SAD was never treated in the hospital.
There are also special HIPAA rules regarding the release of PHI when confirming a patient’s admittance in a facility would disclose the nature of the patient’s treatment. For example, if a clinic treats only drug addicts, then confirming a patient’s admittance to the facility discloses the fact that he or she is being treated for substance abuse.
I haven’t read this whole thread so forgive me if you answered this question. Did you make a UIPA request asking for an amended birth certificate or index data on an amended birth certificate?
Were you denied access or told there were no matching records?
Can you point me to your emails?
Note the difference between column 1 & 2
Honolulu county:
1 - 14,874 total births by county of occurrence
2 - 14,906 total births
3 - 14,814 physician in hospital
4 - 92 attendant not in hospital and not specified/recorded
see also page 103
again, this is only 50% of the totals for 1961: Data refer only to births occurring within the United States. Based on a 50-percent sample.
They take the data from all the even-numbered records and multiply it by 2 to get the totals. So the totals represent what they assume to be the total numbers without them having to enter all the data from every record.
Later on in the tables of data they show that in Honolulu there were 2 non-white babies born which didn’t have a birthweight recorded. They say there were 2 because they had one, with an even-numbered record, which had that situation. They assumed that if there was an even-numbered one there must also be an odd-numbered one so they put the total as 2. All the totals are even numbers because of the way they processed the records using a 50% sampling.
Then why post it?
Is that a statement you would accept as truth from Obama?
Honolulu county:
1 - 14,874 total births by county of occurrence
2 - 14,906 total births
There are 32 less births recorded for the overall total. This difference is common among all states, so could it be possible that the difference was that the 32 births were children born to foreigners and thus were not included in the overall census totals as aliens would not be included?
This would also be in adherence to what I found in the 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act wherein the citizenship of alien children born in the US to alien parents was charged back to the number of immigrants allotted for the parents country of origin. Thew only part of the Act that changed in 1965 was the numbers allotted. You know that racial equality thangy.
Additionally, regarding the absolute denial versus the Glomar response to TerriK's request, remember that Okubo was not abiding by the required UIPA/OIP rules in her initial responses to TerriK. IIRC, when Leo got involved and pointed out that Okubo was required to indicate that a record didn't exist, she then began using the required responses.
I didn’t ask to see an amended birth certificate because DOH rules and HRS 338-18 don’t allow me to see that. I did ask for index records for delayed birth certificate, Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, no records, and pending. I was told the only index information they can give me is
Obama II, Barack Hussein, male, birth.
I asked them to fill out a “Notice to Requestor” form showing whether the index data they gave me matched what I had requested, or whether it was being denied. Okubo said she doesn’t have to fill out a NTR.
So she never told me whether my request was being denied or whether the record exists. Nor did she use a Glomar response, which is what she was trying to do. She knew she couldn’t use a Glomar response though, because what I was asking for (the status of the record) is not protected from disclosure.
So basically she refused to respond to the request I made and substituted a request for generic index records and answered that.
That’s the way they operate there. If you’d like to see the e-mails I could get them to you.
If it was a doctor-attended birth there would be no need for multiple documents for an original birth certificate. If the birth was reported by someone other than the mother or father there would be a need for supporting documents.
So when OIP Director Tsukiyama indicated that the denial of access to supplemental records offered as evidence to support the claims on the original or amended BC was a proper response, he was confirming that either the original BC was completed on the basis of testimony from someone besides doctor, father, or mother, OR the BC was amended at some point OR both.
Fukino’s use of the plural “records” is completely in line with what Tsukiyama confirmed through that UIPA appeal.
When OIP attorney Linden Joesting indicated that the denial of access to receipts and invoices for Obama amending his BC was a proper response, she confirmed that Obama paid a fee to amend his BC.
Neither attorney at the OIP needed Leo to tell them what is a proper response to UIPA. OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama wrote the UIPA manual which describes the process and Cathy Takase (one of the attorneys who responded to Terri K in this process) was the one who wrote OIP Opinion Letter 07-01, which describes how a Glomar response is to be used. Both of those documents were written before Terri K made her requests.
If it was just the DOH who was standing by their responses to Terri K I’d say you have a point. But OIP staff attorneys (including the Director) confirmed the accuracy and appropriateness of the responses in 2 different appeals. Both appeals were answered by official letters saying that the denial of access was the proper response.
IOW, the DOH was checked for accuracy in both of those cases and the people who have written the rules on how these responses must be made issued legal statements saying their rules were followed and the responses given were proper.
I post it because I believe my transparency on other e-mails makes me credible to those who have double-checked my accuracy. Obama, on the other hand, has been proven wrong on just about everything he’s ever said.
Neither MT nor myself are misunderstanding what the answers meant.
I agree that Okubo has been playing fast and loose, which is one of the reasons why I think an investigation is called for.
But I also know that the OIP is legally responsible to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of responses that are appealed. Both of these responses made it past OIP inspection.
To realize what that means a person should look at the OIP Opinion Letter (can’t remember the number off-hand) where an agency denied access to a legal memo. The OIP’s first step was to ask to see the memo so they could decide whether it was properly denied. They discovered that the record had not been found after a reasonable search and ended up deciding that the agency didn’t have to produce the memo because it doesn’t exist; there wasn’t even a UIPA response to be given (denial of access or otherwise) because UIPA only applies to records that exist.
So the process is to look at the actual records and decide if they can be disclosed. If the records don’t exist the OIP would respond that there isn’t a UIPA answer that could be given(either access or denial of access) because UIPA only applies to records which exist.
IOW, if Joesting was following the protocols for UIPA appeals, she actually saw those records herself before she wrote to Terri K saying that the denial of access was proper.
Do we know for sure that the only documentation the hospital submits to the state is the signed birth certificate? I haven't seen any research on that. Back to my title clerk experience, which is a sore subject I know. We submitted a whole folder full of information with the title and tag paperwork. Maybe the hospital has to provide information that is not printed on the actual birth certificate but is supplemental and supportive in nature, such as license numbers or other such items. Just consider it. That's all I'm suggesting.
When OIP attorney Linden Joesting indicated that the denial of access to receipts and invoices for Obama amending his BC was a proper response, she confirmed that Obama paid a fee to amend his BC.
Do we know that the fee to which you're referring isn't the fee Obama paid to obtain the 2007 COLB posted online?
One more time for you, only slower to help you figure it out. 'So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen??' Obama's Web site says his birth was governed by British law ... do you get it now??
This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.
I didn't see anything cite from the Wong "course" that supported the conclusion made by the Hoosier half-wits, I mean Indiana court. I certainly found plenty, like you showed previously that undermines their misunderstanding of Wong.
That is one reason why I keep gigging bp2 on “Blackstone”.
What on Earth does that have to do with what I posted?? Focus, friend, focus. I haven't said anything about Blackstone.
IOW, they have nothing preventing them from talking about SAD??
The hospital cannot automatically tell a private investigator that SAD was never treated in the hospital.
Sure they can. If she wasn't there, they are under no obligation to protect something that doesn't exist.
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.