DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

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".

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.

"Since you claims she wasn't vague, then you can tell me how many documents she was referring to, the title of each of document, when each was dated and by whom they are signed."

And why did you feel it necessary to add such idiotic and irrelevant additional detail to your question, other than because you already knew the answer to the only part of the question that mattered? She also did not tell us what the linen content of the paper was, the color of the file folder it can be found in, or whether or not it smells faintly of vanilla and Spanish blood oranges.

But since she did not tell us those things, in your universe that must mean she is being "vague."

How many documents was she referring to? One. How do we know this? Because she has, in fact, only referred to that one document; Obama's "original birth certificate."

I know it is a mind numbing concept to Birthers, but people usually do mean what they say, and not the opposite.

The bizarro backward world of Birthist literary criticism notwithstanding.

The funniest thing about all of this (and it never gets said) is that you guys actually already believe that Fukino and Okubo have directly lied to you. So why would they engage in the verbal contortionism you accuse them of when they could just lie to your faces some more?

Yeah, that's it!!! Having already committed felony fraud, they are dancing around denying Obama's BC was amended because... why?

The stupid, it burns!

"HRS 338-18(d) says: "such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public."

Unfortunately it does not say "even when to do so would break the law."

"UIPA 92F-14(a) says: "(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual."

And yet, you inexplicably failed to tell us what UIPA 92F-14(b) then immediately says:

"(b) The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest:

(1) Information relating to medical, psychiatric, or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation, other than directory information while an individual is present at such facility;

Oh, darn... not so "check and mate" after all. Not only do we know for a fact that to release Obama's birth certificate to a random non-interested party like you or Butterdezillion would 1) violate the law and 2) have nothing to do with public interest, but it is exactly the sort of record that the UIPA holds at as an example of where there is a significant privacy interest and should not be released.

"These are denials of allegations not testimony of fact. There's a major difference. The allegations have to be proven. Denials don't."

You have to simply stop making stuff up. In point of fact, whether either are "proven" has nothing to do with it. A statement made under penalty of perjury is precisely that, a presentation to the court that what they say is factually true and given under oath. Once again, we are confronted with the bizarro backwards world in which Birthers reside.

You did get one thing right though. The burden of proof here is on the person making the allegations (Strunk), not the State Department. The fact that the DOS made so substantive a response is a bonus. They really didn't have to.

Sorry, but a denial is not affirmation of factuality, especially when there's no evidence that documents were inspected for accuracy, that the state department has full knowledge of the Soetoro/Dunham marital arrangement, etc. Don't make this so easy."

Once again, we find you inventing a whole new set of "verification rules" that exist nowhere but in the fevered imagination of Birthers. We actually have legal standards that already exist ahead of time, specifically so people can't arbitrarily move the goalposts every time the opposing team scores. Standards for things like admissibility, authenticity and legal proof.

The State Department speaks as the authority on issues of American citizenship and the documentation of that cirizenship. If you don't think their testimony here is legally crushing to your case, then you must be on oxycontin.

"Identifying a vital record and the features that make it reliable is idiotic and irrelevant??"

There you go again... inventing a whole new set of verification requirements trying frantically to make up for the smack-down you received at the hand of Fukino in her two statements.

Her testimony is what it is. It is authoritative. In and of itself, with no additional need for documentation or verification, her statements meet the Federal Rules of Evidence in any court in the nation.

And you have nothing to contradict her.

You are simply demonstrating that any and all Birther pretense that there is any evidence you will accept is a farce. You will always be able to come up with a whole new set of hurdles for Obama to leap.

This is probably a key reason why Obama insists on ignoring you guys. He already must know that there is nothing he can show you that will make you go away.

Why try?

Unfortunately it does not say "even when to do so would break the law."

The director may authorize the release of any information at her discretion. No law is broken when she acts under this statutory authority.

And yet, you inexplicably failed to tell us what UIPA 92F-14(b) then immediately says:

Right. Those things are protected if there's no public interest in disclosure. The DOH posted an Obama FAQ page, so they've acknowledged there is plenty of public interest.

Not only do we know for a fact that to release Obama's birth certificate to a random non-interested party like you or Butterdezillion would 1) violate the law and 2) have nothing to do with public interest, but it is exactly the sort of record that the UIPA holds at as an example of where there is a significant privacy interest and should not be released.

There's no violation of law. A disclosure to the PUBLIC comes with no limitation as to who that may be. Check and mate ... still.

fact that the DOS made so substantive a response is a bonus.

Nonsense, faither. All they did was issue a stock denial for each point ... and each denial was issued under the pretext of the motion to dismiss. This is like someone entering a not guilty plea in a criminal case. If you get proven guilty, you're not charged with perjury for entering a not guilty plea.

If you don't think their testimony here is legally crushing to your case, then you must be on oxycontin.

A denial is not testimony. You underscore your desperation with pointless insults aimed at trying to intimidate your way out of a losing argument. Set and match.

inventing a whole new set of verification requirements

Since when is identifying a a document a 'whole new set of verification requirements'?? You're babbling.

Her testimony is what it is. It is authoritative.

Nonsense. A lack of specificity undermines her authority and appears evasive, devolving into nothing more that pretentious hearsay. She has the broad authority to document her response fully. Failure to do so makes her statement worthless. It has no more value than telling us she verified the existence of bigfoot.

"Since when is identifying a a document a 'whole new set of verification requirements'?? You're babbling."

No. I'm focusing.

"Original birth certificate" fully identifies the document. You were doing the knee-jerk Birther thing of going further and demanding access to irrelevant information that you're not allowed by law to see.

"Nonsense. A lack of specificity undermines her authority and appears evasive, devolving into nothing more that pretentious hearsay."

What fascinatingly weird legal theories you guys keep coming up with. Go read the Federal Rules of Evidence, and then get a clue.

There is no lack of specificity here. There is merely the refusal of Birthers to accept that her statements directly and authoritatively eviscerate your narrative.

The newspapers are very imprecise when reporting whether an individual is chief administrator of a medical department or alternatively chief administrator of the entire hospital, yet you continue to play this up as if it proves anything.

Two individuals can simultaneously be "chief administrator" with one being of a department and the other of the entire hospital. They can also change roles.

Othigo was on the way out in early 2009 because in late 2008, these same newspapers reported that under her administration, however broad that was, patients reported that doctors at CPGH were demanding bribes in exchange for treatment.

Transitions can be messy and newspaper reporting sloppy, so public emergence of Maganga as chief of the hospital (with both phonetic spellings of his African name) could have easily been delayed by a few months, say from January to April.

You have reasonable suspicions about conflicting details, but you persist in falsely claiming that your personal suspicions regarding newspaper discrepancies that go both ways "prove" something. Your suspicions about mere discrepancies for which there are alternate exculpatory explanations prove nothing, in my opinion.

"The director may authorize the release of any information at her discretion. No law is broken when she acts under this statutory authority."

Except the law that forbids releasing birth certificates to third parties. But I finally see what you're getting at. You are upset that Fukino is not stupid enough to abuse her discretion on the one hand and break the law. I guess that MD paid off.

"Right. Those things are protected if there's no public interest in disclosure. The DOH posted an Obama FAQ page, so they've acknowledged there is plenty of public interest."

As usual, you are overinflated with your sense of personal importance. And it also does not appear that you understand what "public interest." means.

The issue is not "no public interest." The issue is whether or not the public interest is so much greater than the privacy interest that the former overrules the latter.

News flash... random Birthers like butterdezillion sending invalid UIPA requests does not constitute a demonstration of a public interest worthy of breaking the law.

"The newspapers are very imprecise when reporting whether an individual is chief administrator of a medical department or alternatively chief administrator of the entire hospital, yet you continue to play this up as if it proves anything."

Nonsense. The newspapers are very precise in each and every article cited and do not vary. They use one title, "Chief Administrator." There is no ambiguity there, and you can point out no variation or imprecision.

You are grasping at straws that are not even there.

"Two individuals can simultaneously be "chief administrator" with one being of a department and the other of the entire hospital. They can also change roles."

There is no doubt here that there was a role change. Othigo was the CA first, and Maganga became the CA later... four months too late for Smith's forged BC.

Except the law that forbids releasing birth certificates to third parties.

No, actually it doesn't. There are several possible third-parties who can receive a birth certificate. Review HRS 338-18. And again, there's no law that would be broken by Fukino making a full disclosure. She has statutory authority. I've cited the law. Denying it and twisting it doesn't change it.

The issue is whether or not the public interest is so much greater than the privacy interest that the former overrules the latter.

The HI DOH posted an Obama FAQ page at its Web site. How do you reckon that's not to be in response to legitimate public interest?? These documents should be going into the Obama presidential library for historians and scholars to view. Instead, Obama's records will be hidden and buried like Jimmy Hoffa or Osama Bin Laden.

News flash... random Birthers like butterdezillion sending invalid UIPA requests does not constitute a demonstration of a public interest worthy of breaking the law.

The requests are neither random or invalid. Such requests are absolutely within the rights and rationale of the disclosure laws as written. Quit carrying water for a fraud.

“There is no doubt here that there was a role change. Othigo was the CA first, and Maganga became the CA later... four months too late for Smith’s forged BC.”

You have reasonable suspicions about conflicting details, but you persist in falsely claiming that your personal suspicions regarding newspaper discrepancies that go both ways “prove” something. Your suspicions about mere discrepancies for which there are alternate exculpatory explanations prove nothing, in my opinion.

"No, actually it doesn't. There are several possible third-parties who can receive a birth certificate."

Sadly for you though, none of the "possible third-parties" that are enumerated in the law have asked for one. I note that nether butterdezillion nor you are on that list.

"And again, there's no law that would be broken by Fukino making a full disclosure. She has statutory authority. I've cited the law. Denying it and twisting it doesn't change it."

No law except this one:

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (b)"The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."

What part of "The department shall not..." do you have trouble understanding? Exactly?

"The HI DOH posted an Obama FAQ page at its Web site. How do you reckon that's not to be in response to legitimate public interest??"

LOL... I suspected it before when I suggested you go find out what "public interest" means, and now I know you are clueless. It doesn't mean morbid curiosity. Look up "legitimate" too while you're at it.

"These documents should be going into the Obama presidential library for historians and scholars to view."

And 15 or 20 years from now when there actually is an Obama Presidential Library, you and I can go together and look for them.

"You have reasonable suspicions about conflicting details, but you persist in falsely claiming that your personal suspicions regarding newspaper discrepancies that go both ways “prove” something."

Well... you are correct to a point. These "discrepancies" are not proof of anything, especially to a Birther. After all, a lot of Birthers are still defending the original Fake Kenyan BC that Orly first presented in court, even after the actual forger came out and published (what I will not dare to offend you by calling "proof") that is was a punk. So we all know that the fine upstanding convicted felon and forger Lucas Smith could not himself prove his a fake even if he admitted it.

"Your suspicions about mere discrepancies for which there are alternate exculpatory explanations prove nothing, in my opinion."

I think he's still willing to sell the thing. How much money you willing to use to back up your confidence in the thing?

It seems you misunderstand.

I’m saying that leftists begin with the premise that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

Without truth, nothing can be asserted. Nothing can be argued. Nothing can be reasoned.

Leftists deny themselves access to reason. Because they believe absolute truth doesn’t exist, it’s impossible for them to say anything, ever, that makes sense.

This fact invalidates anything ever posted by leftists on FreeRepublic, and that’s just for starters.

"Well... you are correct to a point. These "discrepancies" are not proof of anything, especially to a Birther. After all, a lot of Birthers are still defending the original Fake Kenyan BC that Orly first presented in court, even after the actual forger came out and published (what I will not dare to offend you by calling "proof") that is was a punk."

You appear to have been taken in by the hoax punking of the Lavender BC, which astute FReepers revealed by examining closely the features of the claimed hoax image compared to clean images of the Lavender BC that were archived by FReepers when it was first posted.

I don't know whether the Lavender BC is real or not, but the hoaxer wasn't the source of it, from the analysis done here (somewhere in the 10,000+ comments):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?q=1&;page=1

“Simply presenting the document would meet the “prima facie” standard, and the case would be closed with no further investigation.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are the one who wrote the above: starting with the word — “simple!”

Now you inform us that:

“Not a single Birther case (with perhaps the exception of Martin v. Lingle) would have ended if Obama presented his BC.... even if it was the long form.”

Your two statements appear to contradict one another.

It’s OK... I’ll let it ride.

I understand (and understood when I posted to you) that no court has requested Obama’s birth certificate.

My question was: why doesn’t he just go ahead and submit the dam thing?

Your answer is (to date) no court of law has “asked” him to submit a hard copy of his birth certificate.

That’s fine and dandy.

The WHOLE idea of many of these lawsuits is to get a court to “ask him” to submit to discovery of some sort — including his birth certificate and other vital records.

You wouldn’t be related to captain obvious would you?

It’s like when someone takes the fifth amendment... we all know that he or she has every right to not participate in his or her own incrimination.

Still there is the court of public opinion.

One cannot help but wonder what he or she could be hiding that he or she fears could incriminate him or her?

By the same token it appears, to a large swath of the public, that Obama is doing a lot of bobbing and weaving for someone that has nothing to hide.

We can argue till the cows come home... but the public perception is GROWING that obama is, in fact, hiding something — perhaps something damming.

If a court of law doesn’t take him out... the “court” of public opinion most certainly will!

STE=Q

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.