Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's "birth certificate" - the Devil's in the details
Article 2, Sect 1, Clause 5 (Natural Born Citizen) ^ | 11/28/08 | Robert Reece

Posted on 11/28/2008 8:52:27 AM PST by BP2

Obama's "birth certificate" - the devil's in the details

The “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” is a portion of the Hawaiian “birth certificate” program that family members may have used to register a young Barack Obama as a US Citizen, during the era Hawaii was transitioning from being a US territory to statehood.

For the purposes of this article, it should be noted that there are several different types of "birth certificates" that Hawaii uses to show proof of birth:

- Certification of Live Birth
- Certificate of Live Birth
- Certificate of Delayed Birth
- Certificate of Hawaiian Birth

To be distinct and precise in terminology, there is no official document called a “birth certificate” in Hawaii. The term is loosely used to describe a certificated proof of birth. (In fact, if you take a look at your “birth certificate” that you may have tucked away in a safe place, it probably says, “Certificate of Live Birth” at the very top of the form.)

The “Certificate of Live Birth,” sometimes called the “long form,” or “vault copy” birth certificate shows details such as the hospital, doctor or midwife’s names, witness signatures, etc. This, by the way, is what John McCain released earlier in the year to the general public:



Since this summer, Obama has shown the “Certification of Live Birth” on his website.


The computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” is used by the state of Hawaii IN LIEU OF the “Certificate of Live Birth,” or if originally filed, a “Delayed Certificate of Birth,” or even a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.” For verification purposes, however, the “Certification of Live Birth” does not indicate which birth record “root document(s)” that the Certification is based upon.


Hawaiian “birth certificate” history

Few official birth certificates existed at the turn of the century, and the few that were filed may have listed only the person’s first name. Hawaiian law established the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” program in 1911. The program permitted a person born in Hawaii who was one year or older, and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii, to be registered by a family or guardian. Hawaii had just been annexed in 1898 and was a US territory, so documenting residents made sense. With families moving between the islands, or having children without the aid of a hospital or doctor, the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” allowed the new territory to capture names for census, voting, property ownership and of course, taxation.

The “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” application was a very basic form which was little more than a personal affidavit and might have little if any verifiable info of the birth. For example, Sun Yat-sen, Chinese revolutionary and political leader often referred to as the “Father of Modern China,” was able to file a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” application and immigrate to the US in 1904 using the form.

Once processed, Sun Yat-sen’s application became a true "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth":



As the decades passed, the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” Application and Certification process became more formalized. For example, this is the 1946 “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” application from Masayoshi Mitose, credited for having brought Kenpo martial arts to the US in the 1930s:


As is evident on Mitose’s supplemental data seems to indicate, the more detailed the support documentation, the greater likelihood the certificate would be accepted by the Secretary of Hawaii, and later, the Department of Health.


When Hawaii became a state in 1959, there were many people residing there who may not have had a filed birth certificate, but did possess a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.” Any person to whom a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” had been issued could request to amendment, including a legal change of name, via a “Late Birth Certificate.”

By applying for a “Late Birth Certificate” issued in lieu of a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” changes could be made to the official records of that person that were filed using the previously-submitted form. The “Late Birth Certificate” would be treated more like the more-legitimate “Certificate of Live Birth,” even though several years may have passed, memories faded and accounts changed regarding the events surrounding the birth.

To make changes to the “birth certificate” on file, an applicant would be required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts, often in the form of a questionnaire and affidavits, to support the registration of the “Late Certificate of Birth.” On a small island, in a time devoid of computers and databases, verification was a little harder to come by than today. Also almost like a small town, people knew each other and were probably not highly suspicious of forgery or incomplete birth records.

Once approved, the “Late Birth Certificate” would be registered in the official birth records in place of the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.” Under existing policy, the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” and supplementary data would then be surrendered to the Department of Health, assumedly to be archived.

The “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” Program was terminated in 1972 when, among other reasons, the law required the U.S. Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers and to obtain more stringent evidence of age and citizenship or alien status and identity. It is not publically known how many citizens possess the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” or how many people used Hawaiian law to modify their birth records to reflect a “Certificate of Delayed Birth” on file in place of the previous form.

American citizenship has always been seen as being highly sought after for political freedom and economic opportunity. Laws similar the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” existed for Guam and other American territories.

By today’s standards, compared to the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” era of non-computerized record keeping of 1972 and before, it would seem relatively difficult to “slip in” using Hawaiian law to prove US Citizenship, especially if the child had not be born on Hawaii.

However, even today’s Hawaiian state law provides for the issuance of “birth certificates” if the child is born out of state, and potentially out of the US, as long as the legal parents can show Hawaii as their legal residence:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. (emphasis added)


How this affects Barack Obama

Barack Obama, born in 1961, has shown the world his “short form birth certificate,” or “Certification of Live Birth”:


For comparison, here’s an example of the more-detailed “vault copy” of a “Certificate of Live Birth”:


A very important point to note is that a “Certification of Live Birth” is an abbreviated version of the birth record on file with the Hawaiian Department of Health. The root document(s), could be: a) a true “Certificate of Live Birth”; b) a “Late Birth Certificate” with or without modifications; or c) a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.”

A “Certification of Live Birth” may reflect data that had been changed over time, and does not provide corroborated testimony such as dates, locations, change in paternal identification, and witnesses. Any record that amendments had been submitted and information changed is not shown on the “Certification of Live Birth,” which is laser printed on special green stock paper, and lacks detailed information that would be expected from a true “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” or “Certificate of Delayed Birth.”

Recent Statements Regarding Obama's "Birth Certificate"

Knowing the intricacies of the Hawaiian “birth certificate” adds mystery instead of resolution with Obama birth record critics, especially when applied to statements provided by Hawaiian officials before the Presidential election.

On Oct. 31, after being inundated by requests for more details about Obama’s birth records, Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had personally verified that the Health Department possesses Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

The cryptic and carefully-worded statement offered no true details of the “birth certificate,” and leads to more questions than answers among critics. In July, when Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth” was first distributed publically on the internet, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo simply asserted to the St. Petersburg Times, “it’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”

Although officials are on record that there is an original “birth certificate” held by the state, and that it is correctly filed according to Hawaii state directives. However, the specifics of the type of “birth certificate” records on file, with modifications, as well as the details and accounts of witnesses, is still unknown at this time.


Credibility of the "Certification of Live Birth"

The computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” was first used in November 2001 to allow the State of Hawaii to pull up birth records quicker for people requesting a “birth certificate” in person. At the very bottom of the form are the words, “This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]."

However, despite this written notice on the form, some Hawaii state agencies do not accept the “Certification of Live Birth” as irrefutable verification of Hawaiian birth. There have been numerous cases when the Hawaii Family Court System required more detailed data for paternity suits. Additionally, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands provides the following guidelines to Hawaiian natives applying for Hawaiian Home Lands homestead:

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
- A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
- A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
- A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.

“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” (emphasis added)

Additionally, the “Certification of Live Birth” is not recognized by many Federal agencies. DoD 5220.22-M, the "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry. “Unified Facilities Guide Specifications,” section 1.5.22.2 allows for a total of 18 different means to verify US citizenship, ranging from a military ID card to even a “Hawaii certificate of foreign birth.” The “Certification of Live Birth” is not on the list of approved documents acceptable for proof of Citizenship.


Persisting questions and Constitutional Problems

Although some vetting took place in summer 2008 after Barrack Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth,” most media outlets and online bloggers failed to explore the unique aspects and varieties of Hawaiian “birth certificates.” Unfortunately, the birth certificate issue may cause a Constitutional crisis if Obama is determined to be other than a “Natural Born Citizen,” as Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires.

One potential problem might involve a name change to “Barry Soetoro” when attending elementary school in Indonesia, which may have occurred if there was an amendment in Obama’s birth record. Some accounts of Obama’s youth indicate his name may have been changed to. A name change would also need to be legally registered in court.

Verbal accounts by some of Obama’s family reportedly indicate Obama’s birthplace was either Kapiolani or Queens Hospital in Hawaii on Aug. 8, 1961. However, no birthing records reportedly can be found in either of the two hospitals, and no records seem to exist that list Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as a patient at either hospital. Also, no medical staff has come forward to offer affidavits of Obama’s birth. A birth announcement appeared in the Aug. 13, 1963 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser, however, it’s not definitive if the announcement was placed by the Department of Vital Statistics or a family member. If the latter is true, it’s plausible that Obama and mother may not have been on the island at the time of birth.

Depending on the events and timing, the “birth certificate” issue could impact the outcome of the Presidential election if Obama’s records are incomplete and do not match the name on Certified ballots. State Secretary of State laws differ on this subject, but could have an effect on Electoral Collage delegates and how they might be allowed to vote on Dec. 15.

At this time, at least 17 lawsuits are pending in various state and federal courts. Additionally, it’s been rumored online that some Electoral College delegates may make requests to see details of Obama’s birth records. Some court cases are destined to be dismissed, while others may lead to a final show-down between Obama and his birth certificate critics.

According to a lawsuit by Philip Berg that is before the Supreme Court on appeal, Berg states that Obama’s mother was in Kenya during her pregnancy, and was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of flight restrictions to prevent births in flight. Berg alleges Obama’s paternal grandmother, half-brother, and half-sister have stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Shortly after giving birth, Obama’s mother flew to Hawaii to register the birth. Justice Souter dismissed the case on Nov. 3. However, Supreme Court rules state that “any brief in opposition shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket.” All parties, the Democratic National Committee, the Federal Elections Committee, Obama, and others are to respond to the court case dismissed by the Third Circuit by December 1.

Additional credibility issues arise depending on the details of Obama’s “vault copy” birth certificate and how it would hold up to a Constitutional challenge of Natural Born Citizenship. As former Ambassador and 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes outlines in his pending lawsuit with the California Secretary of State: “a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.”

In a lesser-known case with potentially earth shattering consequences, the US Supreme Court is set to have a closed-door Conference to evaluate if they wish to further explore the Constitutional-status of Barack Obama, John McCain and Roger Calero as Natural Born Citizens. In contrast to Keyes case and more than a dozen cases pending on the Presidential election, Leo C. Donofrio uniquely alleges Obama’s dual citizenship status at birth with the US and Kenya is prohibited by the Framers of the Constitution because of their concern of “divided loyalties” and “foreign influence.” The case of Donofrio vs. the New Jersey Secretary of State, has the potential to put the final election results on hold, leading up to Electoral College voting on Dec. 15, and Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.

Immediately before Thanksgiving Day, another appeal was added to the US Supreme Court which directly challenges the “Certification of Live Birth” that appears on Obama's website. In the case, Cort Wrotnowski alleges Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz should not have placed Obama’s name on the ballot without verifying the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. “It’s a fundamental point, which is this document has not been produced,” Wrotnowski said. “I’m not the first, not the last, just among a growing number of people across the country who’ve become distressed about the lack of disclosure.”


Conclusion

Given many the many rumors swirling about Barack Obama’s youth, his and his mother’s travels between Africa, Indonesia, Hawaii and Washington State, his father’s Kenyan citizenship, family eye-witness accounts that Barack was born in Kenya, and other inconsistencies, speculation on the known facts is rampant. Critics estimate Obama and his campaign has spent nearly $1 million dodging the issue of the details behind his “birth certificate.”

Critics should be asking the correct questions with their requests to see the "birth certificate." As this article has shown, the root document(s) may be something other than a true “Certificate of Live Birth.”

To have a FULL accounting, the "birth certificate" is NOT enough. The ENTIRE "birth record" on file with the Secretary of Health Vital Statistics Office, as well as any archived files with the former "Secretary of Hawaii" (as was the procedure under the Organic Act of 1900), should be examined to determine if a “Late Birth Certificate” with modifications, or a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” is present or has been archived away from the "vault copy."

Even in the event of an adoption, which is a possibility, the entire records can still be unsealed with a court order so that officials who have the Constitutional requirement to verify a candidate's qualifications may review the document. This is not to conduct a "witch hunt" -- but should be done in the venue of "due diligence," to put this issue to rest.

To silence the questions of his birth records and citizenship, as well as lessen his legal jeopardy in regard to his eligibility to hold the office of President, perhaps Obama’s best course of action would seem that he reveals the details of his birth record. In doing so, he would be able to put to rest doubts that have hounded him for years. Leaving the questions unanswered may well taint the legitimacy of his Presidency for years to come.



TOPICS: Government; History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; lawsuit; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: BP2

Anyone actually able to put their hands on a copy of Stanley Ann Dunham’s 1067-pages-long dissertation, “Peasant Blacksmithing”?
There might be some important facts, previously overlooked, in the “Forward” or “Biography” sections about Ann’s travels, or about Barack Sr in Kenya. Facts that could be helpful in upcoming Supreme Court cases.

It’s on microfiche at University of Hawaii at Manoa, call number “MICROFICHE D32047”. I’ve been trying to put my hands on one of the SIX hard copies that exist in the WORLD of her thesis, with no luck yet....

Can a Hawaiian Freeper check that out for us?
__________________________________________________

Did you send an email to Andy Martin? Isn’t he the lawyer who has filed petitions in Hawaii? I bet he would search for this document.

You have probably already contacted him but maybe if he couldn’t do it, he would know someone who would retrieve this document since he has made multiple trips to Hawaii?

Who knows... BHO’s fraud perpetrators probably set fire to it so it no longer exists.


61 posted on 11/28/2008 1:47:04 PM PST by joygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Obama is hiding something! I don’t believe that he is eligible to serve as President.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244


62 posted on 11/28/2008 2:23:40 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

And he even admitted there were issues with his citizenship during a debate with Alan Keyes and Jack Ryan

I’ve never actually been able to find this referrence. Does it REALLY exist? (I thought it was just Obat disinformation).
_________________________________________________

BP2, I have never been able to find this information either. WND said this happened in an October, 2004 debate with Keyes and Obama. I watched a debate online at CSPAN archive. The date was 10/26/2004 and it was a sit-down debate held in Chicago.

Perhaps there was another debate in October,2004 that has been scrubbed??? There was something Obama said during this debate which caught my attention.

Obama was asked by the moderator, “what would you do with the Electoral College?”

OBAMA said, “I would eliminate the Electoral College. It’s breaking down.” Interesting answer. Telling.

This was a 57 minute debate and this question was part of a quick fire round of questions. The Electoral College question came up at 50:17 minutes into the debate.

I don’t have the specific link handy but you can find the debate on http://www.c-spanarchives.org.

It was cataloged under Product Id: 184143-1.


63 posted on 11/28/2008 2:52:02 PM PST by joygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BP2; All

Anyone who thinks Google isn’t censoring, please notice when you click on the link, it says that the use is being investigated for abuse of terms of service!!


64 posted on 11/28/2008 2:53:05 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

That one page is the BIGGEST ONE YET!

It is from the Hawaii state department saying that issue a certificate delayed!!


65 posted on 11/28/2008 2:55:11 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

That must be why Alan Keyes is so ticked off about him winning. He knows!


66 posted on 11/28/2008 3:40:41 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BP2

So the Dept of Defense will not accept a “Certification of Live Birth”, but we are supposed to accept it for POTUS.


67 posted on 11/28/2008 3:51:40 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: UglyinLA

Yes, and wouldn’t you want to take your fancy American wife to Kenya to meet the in-laws?


68 posted on 11/28/2008 3:55:34 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: joygrace

That “get rid of the electoral college” is interesting. Especially since he is expecting to be considered “President-Elect” before they have even voted.


69 posted on 11/28/2008 3:56:42 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
He's got to be sweating bullets. He knows the issue is going to the court. He knows the truth. He was in Hawaii before the election. Had to have seen the file. He is not acting like an innoent man.

At this point, based upon the fight he's paying for, he is in big jeopardy. Only the court can save him, by finding some technicality to avoid the central constitutional issue.

70 posted on 11/28/2008 4:01:01 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

This is the last paragraph of an article I found. The birth certificate is only necessary to prove his father was Barrack H. Obama Sr.
If his father was from Kenya, he is ineligeble.

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
By P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.


71 posted on 11/28/2008 4:28:56 PM PST by MIAMI-ARMANDO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
The thing is at this late date, if he WAS found to be constitutionally ineligible to be president, and the supreme court ruled an such... there be a full blown civil war by the left wing Obamabots

I say let the Orcs bring it to Middle Earth and try our resolve.

72 posted on 11/28/2008 7:36:32 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
They claim it was done on the back and nothing bled through. So sad, the seal and signature didn’t bleed through the front. It’s CRYSTAL clear in the font and type, but the scanner didn’t pick up a pressed in seal and signature.

Great observation, AR.

The scanner also didn't pick up the paper creases, which are deeply impressed, and clearly shown in the photographs of "the same document".

73 posted on 11/28/2008 7:46:04 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Exactly! So did they fold it afterward? Pretty clear scan to be so folded and sealed.


74 posted on 11/28/2008 7:49:26 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BP2
But the thing about conspiracies is that it's hard to cover-up EVERY lead.

I've been thinking tonight that it's quite possible that no one's minding the minders in the Hawaiian records offices.

With a possible constitutional crisis looming, or even a full-blown illegal theft of a US election through fraud, you'd think that the US Marshalls and the FBI would have those offices fully secured by armed personnel with video cameras and bomb-sniffing dogs by now.

Unless those measures are in place, there's no telling what mischief can be done by just a few well-placed individuals.

75 posted on 11/28/2008 7:55:02 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Yes, it seems after they released it on his website, and before factcheck.org got to take some pictures, lots was added that was questioned before.

Have you seen the information on his supposed Selective Service Registration?


76 posted on 11/28/2008 8:21:07 PM PST by autumnraine (Churchill: " we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Have you seen the information on his supposed Selective Service Registration?

Yes, and that one has at least as many inconsistencies as the phony bc does.

Registration numbers wrong, dates wrong, PO stamp wrong, wrong form, etc. It appears to me that all of this was cobbled together hastily by rank amateurs who thought they could outsmart millions of peoples' scrutiny.

I also want to re-stress the importance of the missing paper impressions on the original bc scan. This is a smoking gun of magnitude, and is prima facie evidence of the commission of the federal offense of forgery of a government document with intent to defraud.

Let someone from camp Obama try to convince a judge that the bc was only folded after it was scanned into a computer. They can't, because the heavy, embossed seal impression is missing from the original scan, too.

BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!

77 posted on 11/28/2008 8:37:11 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Great article! Very thorough. I have a few questions about what you said.

To have a FULL accounting, the "birth certificate" is NOT enough. The ENTIRE "birth record" on file with the Secretary of Health Vital Statistics Office, as well as any archived files with the former "Secretary of Hawaii" (as was the procedure under the Organic Act of 1900), should be examined to determine if a “Late Birth Certificate” with modifications, or a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” is present or has been archived away from the "vault copy."

Seems like Hawaii makes a clear distinction between the short-form, Certification of Live Birth, and the "longer, but not long form," Certificate of Live Birth from what they call a "standard birth certificate," which is Hawaii's long-form, Certificate of Live Birth, or the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, or any complete, original Birth Certificate, or Certificate of Birth (same thing) issued BY ANOTHER STATE OR COUNTRY at the time of birth, signed by the attending doctor, parent(s), and so on.

From my understanding of the Law, there is a big difference between having a "standard birth certificate" on record AND a late registration, Certificate of Live Birth, which is substituted (but is not a substitute) for a nonexistent "standard birth certificate."

According to Vital Records:

A request to amend a Certificate of Live Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an application with the Department of Health for registration of a late certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the Department of Health.

If there is a standard birth certificate on record, and the approval is given to amend it with an application for a new Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, THEN the original, standard birth certificate is put in an envelope and sealed, and the existing birth record is updated -- but, it is definitely NOT called an original birth certificate.

If there is NO standard birth certificate on record, and the approval is given to accept a new Certificate of Live Birth, THEN that COB becomes a late birth registration, and the information on it is used to create a new birth record.

BUT, Hawaii DOES NOT label that birth record, a "Standard birth record," because it was created with a late birth, COB.

What if the request for amending the standard birth record is denied? Then the standard birth record remains in force.

What if the request for creating a late birth COB is denied? Then there will be no birth records of any kind.

Again, here are the rules:

If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.

What if there was an exisiting birth record, and the request from Obama's mother is approved, but she never surrenders the previous COB or whatever was the standard birth record? I would imagine that the approval would be rescinded, as if it never was approved. Or, perhaps approval is only given contingent upon getting that COB back?

There were two events that might, at least, reduce the possible scenarios.

First off, I'd bet that what turned out to be a rumor, that Gov. Lingle had "sealed" Obama's original birth certificate, was actually a misunderstood communication leaked to the press regarding what was said. Namely, that Obama does have a an "original birth certificate" sitting in a sealed envelope, and THAT is what Directors Fukino and Onaka "formally verified," because (a) there was a sealed envelope, and (b) only the Health Department can seal a birth record.

Now, what's in that "sealed" envelope? I can tell you what is NOT iin that sealed envelope, and that is the bogus information on a forged COLB.

78 posted on 11/28/2008 9:53:54 PM PST by Polarik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik; BP2; Windflier; autumnraine; Calpernia; pissant; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Travis McGee; ...


79 posted on 11/28/2008 10:23:37 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BP2
To silence the questions of his birth records and citizenship, as well as lessen his legal jeopardy in regard to his eligibility to hold the office of President, perhaps Obama’s best course of action would seem that he reveals the details of his birth record. In doing so, he would be able to put to rest doubts that have hounded him for years. Leaving the questions unanswered may well taint the legitimacy of his Presidency for years to come.

This is very fascinating. Worth a read just to understand the intricacies of the 20th century Hawaiian birth records "system." No one born before 1971 in Hawaii can have their citizenship accepted without question; a deeper check is needed across the board. Not that such an investigation would take much time or cost much. There's no excuse for the media being blind on this issue. It's more interesting than half of the legal stuff that is pursued on Greta and Nancy Grace et al.

80 posted on 11/28/2008 10:53:26 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson