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

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.

According to the DOH's adminstrative rules (posted at butter's site) we are. The only problem is that the DOH doesn't want to follow its own rules. Instead they carry water for a fraud.

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

It only applies to CERTIFIED copies of the record and physical inspections of records. I'm not asking for my own certified copy of the record and I'm not asking for personal access to the DOH's records. Do you understand??

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.

Translated: you knew you were pwned on this point, so you're going to post a vapid insult and some pointless word search game because you can't dispute the point. I accept your concession.

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.

I hope you like looking at empty rooms and blank exhibits.

"According to the DOH's adminstrative rules (posted at butter's site) we are. The only problem is that the DOH doesn't want to follow its own rules. Instead they carry water for a fraud."

LOL... no, you're not.

The Statute (§338-18) is pretty clear on who is. Here's the list:

"(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy."

So... where exactly on that list do you and butterdezillion fall? Exactly?

"It only applies to CERTIFIED copies of the record and physical inspections of records. I'm not asking for my own certified copy of the record and I'm not asking for personal access to the DOH's records. Do you understand??"

It says nothing about "physical" inspection. But that's okay, the actual statute is even clearer in that issue:

"§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health."

Now... since instead of taking my sound advice to go figure out what "public interest" means, you whined about being insulted, let me help you out from UIPA Manual:

"The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability."

As I said, it's not mere prurient interest. You actually have to have a reason that fits into the above. And to short stop the pointless quibble I suspect you will make next, no. The "governmental accountability" discussed here is not the Fed's... it's the State's.

Oh... and one other thing, you kept irrationally insisting that the Director had the discretion to release records even in violation of the law. The UIPA manual also disagrees with you on that.

"Unless it is required by another law or court order to maintain the confidentiality of a record, the agency can choose to disclose a record that falls under an exception."

Since Obama's birth certificate is prohibited from disclosure to you by §338-18, the Director has no discretion to release it.

"Right. And the original birth certificate was NOT cited as the source of the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. Do you understand??"

It still remains the only document ever cited by Fukino in either of her statements. Thus the claim that she has indicated that there are any others is a lie.

"And as you now acknowledge, the specific document was not said to be part of the general category that was cited."

Again, you are in error. The specific document is the only document that was ever cited by Fukino. And we all know that "vital statistics" actually is the general category into which birth certificates fall.

"In fact, it was clearly separated within the statement."

Again... the idiocy of this claim leaps to the forefront. You find indefensible significance in the excruciating and tendentious parsing of Fukino's statements as if she is trying so hard not to say something that is actually untrue... at the same time you insist she is flat out lying to you.

What a weird, weird world you Birthers live in.

The bottom line remains that Fukino has not said (and neither has Okubo or anybody from the OIC) the things you keep insisting they said. There are no admissions of any amendments, adoptions, alterations or alternative documents to the "original birth certificate." And certainly no "indirect admission" of a forged COLB.

The Statute (§338-18) is pretty clear on who is. Here's the list:

The list applies to part B of the statute. Other parts of the statute have different "lists," while Part D has no list ... it is open to the public.

It says nothing about "physical" inspection. ... the actual statute is even clearer in that issue:

Part B talks about inspection of records and certified copies of the records. Also, you completely missed this part of what you highlighted ... "except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted." The "exceptions" are the other parts of the statute and administrative rules that are sought by butter or myself.

As I said, it's not mere prurient interest.

You're misusing a word here. Best to go look it up before you embarrass yourself further. What you cite on public interest completely supports our efforts at transparency.

The UIPA manual also disagrees with you on that.

No, actually it doesn't. You're not quite understanding what you quoted. This talks about a maintaining confidentiality. HRS 388 doesn't protect a birth certificate's confidentiality ... just access to copies of certified records or physicial access by persons to inspect records in person. Other parts of the statute are for public health statistical records, public birth indexes (such as how birth announcements were listed in the newspaper) ... there's no confidentiality and certainly no court order in place ... and there's especially no confidentiality expected since Obama already released an alleged abstract of the record.

They give a really good example in the manual that would explain exactly why Obama's certificate should be released.

"A former University President had a significant privacy interest in the Board of Regents’ evaluation of his job performance. The public had a strong interest in scrutinizing the work of the Board of Regents as well as the President’s performance as a high level government official. Although the two rights were closely balanced, OIP found that the public interest outweighed the employee’s privacy interest."

It still remains the only document ever cited by Fukino in either of her statements.

No, the only document cited by name ... she cited other documents per a category ... she just didn't name all the documents. We don't know how many documents she cited, but it was clearly more than just the original birth certificate. And, she clearly did NOT cite the original birth certificate as the source of the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The specific document is the only document that was ever cited by Fukino.

You're making the same, wrong argument.

The bottom line remains that Fukino has not said (and neither has Okubo or anybody from the OIC) the things you keep insisting they said.

Sorry, but 2+2=4. They have misdirected, lied, and used other forms of double-speak instead of following their own laws and rules. It is what it is ... unnecessary hiding of the truth. Quit carrying water for a fraud.

“The hoaxer was absolutely the source of it, as proven by the fact that he/she produced the highest resolution copy (i.e. the original) of the photograph that Orly first published, along with other photographs taken on the same unique background as the Orly photo.”

I missed that. Link please!

What I saw from the hoaxer was a very high resolution picture of his forgery of Orly's Lavender document placed on a non-unique textile, possibly even the exact pattern from the same source, but hardly conclusively unique. Just because two manufactured textiles look the same doesn't prove they are singularly the same item.

The resolution was so high that clear discrepancies between the hoax forgery image and the Lavender image were conclusive including spelling mistakes.

"The list applies to part B of the statute. Other parts of the statute have different "lists," while Part D has no list ... it is open to the public."

And? They've already released the Index data covered by what you erroneously call "Part D." Do you want them to release it again?

As to the list applying "to part B of the statute," you are confusing what "part" means. When the statute refers to "this part" it refers to the entire "§338-18 Disclosure of records." That is the "part" of the statute. What you call "part B" is actually paragraph B of part 18 of §338.

"The 'exceptions' are the other parts of the statute and administrative rules that are sought by butter or myself."

There are no such exceptions relevant to your and butter's requests.

"You're misusing a word here. Best to go look it up before you embarrass yourself further. What you cite on public interest completely supports our efforts at transparency."

Oh no... I am using that specific word very deliberately. It's meant as mockery. That you did not notice is, well, delicious.

Changing the subject from "public interest" to "transparency" doesn't help you much, since you do not appear to understand what "transparency" means any more than you do "pubic interest." But releasing to you records in which you have no "tangible interest" does nothing to promote any efforts at transparency. It merely violates the law.

"HRS 388 doesn't protect a birth certificate's confidentiality "

What a goofy statement. The confidentiality protected is that of the registrant, not the certificate. The certificate is simply the document bearing the confidential information.

As to the hilarious example you used... the birth certificate of an infant hardly provides information relevant to the "performance... (of) a high level government official."

But then again, you wacky Birthers believe that newborn infants have "loyalties" to nations they won't even be aware of for years.

So your specious reasoning is only par for the course.

"What I saw from the hoaxer was a very high resolution picture of his forgery of Orly's Lavender document placed on a non-unique textile, possibly even the exact pattern from the same source, but hardly conclusively unique. Just because two manufactured textiles look the same doesn't prove they are singularly the same item."

What you missed was that one of them was the identical photograph that Orly and WND released... but higher resolution than what either of them possessed. The Punker's images are themselves no longer on line, but he/she originally released them here:

http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3037

I'm sure that somebody on FR got copies before the hosting site went belly up.

"The resolution was so high that clear discrepancies between the hoax forgery image and the Lavender image were conclusive including spelling mistakes."

LOL... the spelling mistake that actually did exist on the fake BC is actually another peice of proof that Orly's was a fake. If you look on the Orly copy, that exact spot of the misspelling is covered up on the photo he/she gave to Orly by a piece of "smutz." I don't know what it was... Chocolate? Tobacco? But the presence of the misspelling on the exact spot as the glop of whatever on Orly's photo is actually further evidence that it's the same document, that the forger deliberately covered up the misspelling, and that Orly was Punked.

Add to it that the poor Australian guy whose BC was used to make the forgery was publicly interviewed, and the forgery is inescapable.

But you still believe it anyway. Because Birther lies never die.

And? They've already released the Index data covered by what you erroneously call "Part D." Do you want them to release it again?

Yes, I would like them to release additional index data to confirm the legitimacy of the alleged COLB. According to a Hawaii legal opinion letter, file numbers are permissable parts of index data for public release."Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public." Link to source

There are no such exceptions relevant to your and butter's requests.

Wrong. Re-read ... "other data as the director may authorize" ... there's virtually ZERO limitations (pun intended).

Oh no... I am using that specific word very deliberately.

The use mitigates whatever point you think you were making and it fails at mocking because the result was that you came off looking ill-informed.

Public interest and transparency are definitely interrelated concepts. Here's a good example linking the two concepts ... specifically with Obama.

Public Interest Groups Want Transparency In The Spotlight

The confidentiality protected is that of the registrant, not the certificate

... and who is the registrant?? Only the most public figure in the world. He posted an alleged COLB. There's no confidentiality at risk.

All you pose is one incredibly ignorant argument after the next. Even the dismembered Black Knight put up a better fight than this.

“LOL... the spelling mistake that actually did exist on the fake BC is actually another peice of proof that Orly's was a fake. If you look on the Orly copy, that exact spot of the misspelling is covered up on the photo he/she gave to Orly by a piece of “smutz.” I don't know what it was... Chocolate? Tobacco? But the presence of the misspelling on the exact spot as the glop of whatever on Orly's photo is actually further evidence that it's the same document, that the forger deliberately covered up the misspelling, and that Orly was Punked.

“Add to it that the poor Australian guy whose BC was used to make the forgery was publicly interviewed, and the forgery is inescapable.

“But you still believe it anyway. Because Birther lies never die.”

The Lavender hoax forger of Orly's image was apparently a young Obot pup who was unfamiliar with the word “maiden” and misspelled it in high resolution on his/her forgery.

Under high resolution on the Orly Lavender image, the schmutz can be clearly seen to only partially obscure the correctly spelled word “maiden”, not the Obot’s incorrect spelling. The Lavender hoax image is not exactly the same as Orley’s image as you claim, but only very similar.

The Australian individual whose BC is claimed to be the model for the Orly image has a controversial history and a person with a very similar name, perhaps a relative, was connected to the Obama campaign in the US, if I remember correctly.

I never have said that I “believe” the Lavender, Blaine or Lucas Smith CPGH BCs to be genuine. I only make my personal assessment as to probability that they are genuine or fake, which I have always kept to myself.

You are the one who is making firm declarations that all of these BCs are fake and the the HI COLB “proves” Obama was born in HI. I make no declarations of belief or disbelief about any of these images. I do investigate individual features of each image and attempt to verify them to my satisfaction and I publicly affirm and defend some of those features while withholding opinion on each image.

The only indisputable fact is that Obama has not authorized HI to release his original vital records which would reveal an actual claimed physical birth address and witnesses.

The alleged HI COLB has never been confirmed to be genuine by HI officials and has never been placed into evidence (claims in Obama defense motions and by Factcheck don't count).

"Under high resolution on the Orly Lavender image, the schmutz can be clearly seen to only partially obscure the correctly spelled word “maiden”, not the Obot’s incorrect spelling. The Lavender hoax image is not exactly the same as Orley’s image as you claim, but only very similar."

Nothing in that paragraph is true. Orly's image is not high enough resolution to show that. You are, frankly, seeing things.

The Punker's image was the original high resolution copy that Orly's reduced image derived from, and you cannot see the misspelling on that. So seeing it on a lower resolution copy like Orly's is wishful thinking at best. That it is the identical image (except for resolution) could be seen by the fact that the background textile and creases on the paper were identical right down to every visible detail of the pattern and weave.

The misspelling is only visible on those images where the "smuts" was removed (though a stain still remained).

"The Australian individual whose BC is claimed to be the model for the Orly image has a controversial history and a person with a very similar name, perhaps a relative, was connected to the Obama campaign in the US, if I remember correctly."

Nothing you remember there is correct. It was just some poor guy in Australia who had no idea his online BC was being used in this way. But that is neither here nor there. The Bomford certificate was online for at least two years prior, and is clearly the source document for the forgery right down to the surnames... a forgery that (by the way) resembles no genuine Kenyan BCs ever found and presented on line.

"The only indisputable fact is that Obama has not authorized HI to release his original vital records which would reveal an actual claimed physical birth address and witnesses."

Given that there are no Presidential eligibility requirements regarding birth addresses or witnesses, one can only respond with the observation (again) that the COLB in and of itself meets the requirements of the State Department for proof of American citizenship at birth.

"The alleged HI COLB has never been confirmed to be genuine by HI officials and has never been placed into evidence (claims in Obama defense motions and by Factcheck don't count)."

Well, you're not quite right there either. The State Department's response to the Strunk FOIA suite absolutely does count since it is testimony under oath by an organization in the position to know. Further more, the COLB is confirmed by Hawaiian officials since it has Alvin Onaka's certification and their stamp right on it.

You guys keep forgetting that it is precisely those features that makes it a self authenticating document requiring no extrinsic verification whatsoever.

So until somebody actually comes up with actual evidence that contradicts the COLB, it never will need to be confirmed by another Hawaiian official and it will never be presented in a court of law.

"Yes, I would like them to release additional index data to confirm the legitimacy of the alleged COLB. According to a Hawaii legal opinion letter, file numbers are permissable parts of index data for public release."Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public."

That letter is from 1990. It quotes a version of the statute that is no longer in effect. Nice try, but without a time machine, you've already gotten everything the statute currently allows.

"Wrong. Re-read ... "other data as the director may authorize" ... there's virtually ZERO limitations (pun intended)."

Except (again) the limitation of not being able to release information forbidden by law to release.

"Public interest and transparency are definitely interrelated concepts. Here's a good example linking the two concepts ... specifically with Obama."

How would you know? You continue to demonstrate no valid understanding of either. You have demonstrated no genuine public interest that would be served by accessing Obama's original birth certificate other than satisfying your prurient (see, I used the word again) interest in knowing the name of his attending physician... something with exactly no relevance to his eligibility as President.

"He posted an alleged COLB. There's no confidentiality at risk."

1) The law does not care what Obama has done... he can do anything he wants. The law places limitations on the Hawaii DOH, and the DOH would still be breaking the law were they to release the information to you.

2) The COLB (which you acknowledge he has released, good for you) contains 100% of the information necessary to prove his natural born American citizenship. So again... there is no public interest that outweighs the confidentiality of the original document.

That letter is from 1990. It quotes a version of the statute that is no longer in effect. Nice try, but without a time machine, you've already gotten everything the statute currently allows.

The only thing that's changed is the default data items. The other items that were dropped from the language weren't specifically restricted from release, especially when at least one item has already been publicly released at brith.

Except (again) the limitation of not being able to release information forbidden by law to release.

There is no information forbidden by release. Information is limited in some applications, but none is strictly forbidden, especially not in 338-18(d). The director has unlimited discretionary authority.

How would you know?

Because I read and comprehend. All you do is deny and come up with painfully contorted outburts.

The law places limitations on the Hawaii DOH, and the DOH would still be breaking the law were they to release the information to you.

Wrong. I've shown that it hasn't. You cite one part of the law and ignore the rest. Ignorance is not an excuse to hide the truth.

...100% of the information necessary to prove his natural born American citizenship

It contains information that might have relevance, but only if it can be supported as genuine. Otherwise, people like you would just fall for every counterfeit document that comes along. The DOH refuses affirm the alleged COLB despite having FULL statutory authority to do so. The public interest is massive, tangible and direct. It's time to quit making excuses, twisting the facts and carrying water for a fraud. Demand better from yourself.

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.