B.C. FRAUD PROOF

The subject fills out a bio form or answers questions.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you worked there at the time.

There aren't any "assumptions." The publisher didn't just assume Obama was born in Kenya. They wouldn't know anything about him, so HE had to provide the publisher with background information about himself.

I didn't mean the publisher made up the Kenya thing out of whole cloth. Obama probably wrote something about his family being from Kenya, and the low-level person in charge of the bios thought that meant (there's the "assumption") he was born there.

Anyway, like I said, believe what you want about the brochure. The original claim was that Obama said he was born in Kenya on the cover of his book, and I'm just pointing out that that's not true, before it becomes another unquestioned part of birther lore.

Why do you keep proving my point for me?? I said that Hawaii refused to comply with court orders and you’re showing an example that back that up. They acted to DISMISS a complaint. What part of that do you not understand?

Second, I wanted to point out how stupid your earlier comment was about different administrations, when it was the latter administration, Gov. Abercrombie himself, who said he was going to find and disclose Obama’s birth certificate. Onaka’s move to hide the birth certificate goes entirely counter to that policy. If anything, he should have promptly disclosed it to as Abercrombie promised. Thanks for proving me right. Again.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you worked there at the time.

I'm sorry, do you have a reading comprehension problem?? I didn't claim to work there. I explained, in general, how bios are written. But, we don't have to simply take my educated word for it; Breitbart already published a story that said the publisher's standard procedure was for writers to submit their own bios. So when a fact-checking error is made, it is a failure to check facts submitted by the author in his own bio — that he would have written himself.

Link to Breitbart, "Dystel & Goderich Ask Writers to Submit Their Own Bios"

I didn't mean the publisher made up the Kenya thing out of whole cloth. Obama probably wrote something about his family being from Kenya, and the low-level person in charge of the bios thought that meant (there's the "assumption") he was born there.

If this is true, then it wasn't a fact-checking error as was claimed. A fact-checking error is when somebody gives you facts and your job is to check to see if those facts are correct or not. It's not about making an assumption. If this were the case, the publisher would have said, "We misunderstood where the subject was born."

Anyway, like I said, believe what you want about the brochure. The original claim was that Obama said he was born in Kenya on the cover of his book, and I'm just pointing out that that's not true, before it becomes another unquestioned part of birther lore.

It's a trivial distinction because there is still a bio that says Obama was born in Kenya and Obama is the only logical source of that information. Whether it was on the cover of the book or not, is trivial. It was still published. It didn't have to be on the cover of a book to be a problem for Obama now. Of course, there are several later news headlines that said he was Kenyan-born, which is consistent with Obama's same factuality problem.

Under the Republican administration of Governor Linda Lingle, her Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. MD refused to release Obama’s birth records under a UIPA request made by Mr. Don Hamrick. Hamrick then filed suit to compel Fukino to release the vital records (Hamrick v. Fukino). Fukino prevailed.
http://nborncitizens.wordpress.com/tag/terrik-part-1-fukino-coverup-hawaii/

Under the Democratic administration of Governor Neal Abercrobie two different people sought access to Obama’s birth records utilizing UIPA requests. Abercrombie’s Health Director, Loretta Fuddy followed in the footsteps of her predecessor, Dr. Fukino, and denied the UIPA requests.
Like Don Hamrick before them, the UIPA requestors, Dr. Robert Justice and mr. William Wolf both filed suit seeking court orders to compel Director Fuddy to turn over those birth records (Justice v. Fuddy & Wolf v. Fuddy).
The courts ruled in Fuddy’s favor over dr. Justice and Mr. Wolf.
Hawaii courts have held that the tangible interest provisions of the Hawaii vital records privacy statute take precedence over the UIPA provisions.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/wolf-v-fuddy-dismissed-on-basis.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2011/04/hawaii-court-rejects-latest-birther-appeal-545978.html

I didn't claim to work there.

I know you didn't. I was being sarcastic.

I explained, in general, how bios are written.

No, you said, specifically, that either the author filled out a form or the publisher asked them questions. Neither of those was accurate.

But, we don't have to simply take my educated word for it

I don't think we will, since you got it wrong already.

Breitbart already published a story that said the publisher's standard procedure was for writers to submit their own bios.

So like I said, Obama wrote his own "narrative bio." Undoubtedly he said something about Kenya in it.

No book publisher would agree that the distinction between a publicity brochure and an actual book is "trivial." Or that such a brochure is "published" in the same sense a book is. You basically don't know what you're talking about.

I know you didn't. I was being sarcastic.

Sarcasm works better when it doesn't expose your own hypocrisy. You were trying to pass off your opinion about how the bio was written by "assumption." That same sarcasm should have applied to your assumption scenario.

No, you said, specifically, that either the author filled out a form or the publisher asked them questions. Neither of those was accurate.

Wrong. Read what I actually wrote. The first part of this is about the general process of writing A bio, not THE bio. The second part states the obvious (which I proved in my subsequent post) ... that the information for the bio was a product of the publisher's assumption.

Writing a bio isn't about making an assumption. The subject fills out a bio form or answers questions. There aren't any "assumptions." The publisher didn't just assume Obama was born in Kenya. They wouldn't know anything about him, so HE had to provide the publisher with background information about himself.

I don't think we will, since you got it wrong already.

I didn't get anything wrong. You did.

So like I said, Obama wrote his own "narrative bio." Undoubtedly he said something about Kenya in it.

You said the publisher made an assumption error. Way to backpedal.

So like I said, Obama wrote his own "narrative bio." Undoubtedly he said something about Kenya in it.

You didn't say anything about a narrative bio. You claimed Obama "told" this information to a so-called "flunky" who then made an "assumption." This is just another of your ridiculous backpedals after being proven wrong by me. This is way too easy.

No book publisher would agree that the distinction between a publicity brochure and an actual book is "trivial." Or that such a brochure is "published" in the same sense a book is. You basically don't know what you're talking about.

What a weak and desperate attempt to spin you're way out of being wrong. This isn't about what the publisher thinks. It's about the Kenyan birth claim being inconvenient to Obama. It matters not if that factoid was on the cover of the book or in a bio. The publisher's opinion is irrelevant to that point.

Under the Republican administration of Governor Linda Lingle, her Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. MD refused to release Obama’s birth records under a UIPA request made by Mr. Don Hamrick.

Are you really this stupid?? You keep arguing in a way that agrees with me. I said the HI DOH refused to do this already. What part of that are you not comprehending? The point is that Lingle, Fukino, Abercrombie and Fuddy all could have VOLUNTARILY disclosed any and all of Obama's records under the UIPA. It isn't about lawsuits or court orders. I said the law doesn't make it mandatory, meaning that a lawsuit cannot force the release of these records. The hypocrisy is that Abercrombie pledged to find the records and then release them, but when push came to shove, he couldn't find any such records. And then when the forgeries were released, his administration doubled down on hiding whatever records they did have or helped create. Why are you defending these creeps??

The first part of this is about the general process of writing A bio, not THE bio.

Talk about weak and desperate! You wrote that "the [bio] subject fills out a bio form or answers questions." You were wrong.

The second part states the obvious (which I proved in my subsequent post) ... that the information for the bio was a product of the publisher's assumption.

As you asked of others, Why do you keep proving my point for me??

You claimed Obama "told" this information to a so-called "flunky" who then made an "assumption."

I said he told the publisher, I didn't say he told the flunky directly. You posted the link explaining that he was asked to provide a narrative bio. That's telling the publisher.

You apparently missed my post earlier when I talked about writing one thing and having an editor assume I meant something else and change the words accordingly. You seem to be under the impression that everything that sees print is the handiwork of the original author. You're wrong about that. If the fact checker doesn't run the changed wording by me, is it an assumption error or a fact-checking error? It's both, obviously.

It matters not if that factoid was on the cover of the book or in a bio.

It does when the claim is that it appeared on the cover of a book--at least to those of us who care what the actual facts are.

I almost forgot about your ability to claim words mean something other than what they plainly say! “Telling the publisher” does not equate to “telling the flunky.” Do you think that when you write a letter to a business, they pass it around for everyone there to read?

And you haven’t proven me wrong because I haven’t claimed anything I can be proven wrong about. I speculated about how the error may have happened. My speculation matches what the person who worked there says happened. If you want to prove her a liar, you need a lot more than your delusional impressions of how the publishing business works.

I almost forgot about your ability to claim words mean something other than what they plainly say! “Telling the publisher” does not equate to “telling the flunky.”

You didn't say "telling the publsher" ... and the rest of your point is meaningless because there was no "flunky." You talked about an assumption but there was none. Again, the publisher said it was a "fact checking error." This would mean according to their own posted procedures that Obama wrote his bio and they did NOT check the facts that he wrote. And why would they?? And how would they check such a fact when that information came directly from him?? Your speculation is about a phantom "flunky" making a phantom "assumption" is plain nonsense. Just admit it. You're wrong. I proved it.

As your posts are becoming increasingly untethered from reality, I think I'll just place a couple more actual facts here, for the benefit of anyone still reading, and then slowly back away from this thread.

1. You now say "You didn't say 'telling the publsher.'" But I originally wrote "did he tell them something like 'my family came from Kenya'" and you yourself turned that into

You claimed Obama "told" this information to a so-called "flunky"

and

in this construction from your earlier post, "flunky" is part of "them."

So first you claim I said he told the flunky because he told the publisher, and now you claim I didn't say he told the publisher. Forgive me if I don't try to make sense of that.

2. You write "the rest of your point is meaningless because there was no 'flunky.'" But the woman who says she made the fact-checking error says she was "an agency assistant at the time." Now you're claiming not just that she's lying when she says it was a fact-checking error, but that she doesn't even really exist at all!

And that's as far into your hall of mirrors as I intend to go.

Wow, this is complete nonsense. All you’re doing is talking in circles and trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say the woman who claimed a “fact checking error” was lying. I said that by calling it a fact checking error, it means that she accepted the facts as they were given to her by someone else, and according to their procedures, that would have been from the author, which was Obama. I take her at her word. She might be covering for Obama, but I didn’t say she was lying. Obama wrote his bio. She said she didn’t check his facts. But she wouldn’t have any reason to do so. Most people would not make a mistake about their place of birth when they write their own bios. There should be no reason for her to go back and check the fact. And even if she did, there’s no evidence to show that fact would have been changed in 1991.

What difference does tangible interest make? Duncan Sunahara was acknowledged as having a tangible interest in getting a certified copy of his sister’s long-form but Hawaii wouldn’t give it to him anyway. Why not? UIPA is the law governing disclosure of government records, and it says that unless a disclosure is specifically forbidden in the statutes, then it MUST be disclosed. Disclosure of public health records are forbidden only when the requestor does NOT have a tangible interest, and siblings have a tangible interest.

So all the talk about how high a bar one has to leap over in order to get the record is just a smokescreen. Duncan Sunahara passes the highest bar they’ve got legally, and yet Deputy AG Jill Nagamine refused to obey the law. And she got away with it. Surprise, surprise. The same thing we see EVERYWHERE with this lawless coup that’s taken over our country.

My understanding is that Mr. Sunahara was granted access because he qualified as having a tangible interest under the provisions of HRS 338-18. However the law states that the Director of Health gets to determine the manner of compliance and Mr. Sunahara was not permitted a long form copy nor was he permitted observation of the photocopying of the document.
Both the original jurisdiction court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that UIPA and the relevant Hawaii Revised Statutes were complied with by the Director of Health issuing the short form computer abstract, which is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii.

Sunahara was not granted access to a COPY of his sister’s BC OR even the FULL CONTENTS of his sister’s BC. Fuddy withheld the doctor’s name and signature, the mother’s name and signature, etc. What statute specifically forbids the disclosure of that information? Fuddy’s discretion does NOT include discretion to deny disclosure that is allowed by law.

So tell me what statute expressly forbids the HDOH from disclosing (to a party with a direct and tangible interest) the doctor’s signature on a birth certificate. What law authorized Fuddy to withhold that specific disclosure? I’m not talking about what form must be used - although Fuddy is bound to go through the procedures to officially change the Administrative Rules if she contradicts the Administrative Rules already in effect, and PHR Chapter 8b only allows computer printouts to be used with ABBREVIATED BC’s, not with standard BC’s. The Administrative Rules also say that a qualified requestor will be given only the non-confidential portion of the standard BC unless they specifically ask to see the confidential portion as well. Unless and until Fuddy goes through the proper procedure to change those administrative rules, she is legally bound to them and cannot forbid access to information expressly allowed by statute and the Administrative Rules.

He was given a COLB and the court agreed that was all he was entitled to.
Duncan Sunahara’s attorney showed at trial that there is a provision in the Public Health Rules which said that the Department of Health MAY allow an individual access to inspect records under certain circumstances. He was not able to convert any of those “mays” to a “must” to the satisfaction of Judge Nishimura. She granted the state’s Motion for Summary Judgement.

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.