Posted on 09/21/2009 5:37:18 PM PDT by rxsid
The gov is only peripherally involved. She trusted her Vital Records people to do what was right.
[[ JeffM Says:
September 21, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Leo,
You’re going to bump uglies with this:
§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
Watch out as the court will attempt lay a nice veil over the intent of this section.
+Ed. The invasion of privacy has to outweigh the public interest and the public interest is specifically attached to the working of Government... but this case is not technically an issue regarding Obama's personal vital records...but rather the issue she sought pertained to whether he requested to amend them or if he actually amended them. Those requests, even a request to see his records is itself a government record under the UIPA and as such she requested to see it --- NOT the actual vital records themselves.
TerriK was originally interested in whether or not he made a request to amend his records and to inspect them for the purpose of amending. Those requests (not the actual amendments) do not appear to be protected according to the statute and various opinions issued by the state... regardless... TerriK's requests to see the amendments had to be answered in one of three ways according to the statute and the manual:
1. we have the record you requested and will provide them
2. we don't maintain the records you requested (aka we don't have any such records in file)
3. we have the records, but you are not entitled to see them
She was told on two occasions by an OIP staff attorney that if no such records exist, they must notify her of that fact.
Eventually that same staff attorney, acting on advice of the DoH told TerriK that the records were not available as they were protected. Their official response was that she wasn't allowed access to those records... They never told her that they didn't maintain these records she requested. If they didn't have such records, then they would have been required to tell her the records don't exist.
More to come in the days ahead.]]
I am not so sure about that. there was someone on here that had been adopted in hawaii, the birth records were amended and the original info sealed...but I can’t remember the details.
Does the 1982 law state “children born out of state” or children born “outside of the country?”
He could have been adopted Lolo Soetoro and his surname legally and then amended again when he changed it back to Obama
Many plots, many disappointments, never ending - until it ends.
The original info may be sealed - from prying eyes. but the family or the person whose records they are can go back and see the originals if they so choose.
If that is true, why do so many adopted children have a difficult time finding their true parents?
Possible. Or they may have found a patsy named Obama to claim fathership instead of unknown or Frank Marshall Davis
Or conversely, how come so many adopted kids find out they were adopted and find their birth parent(s)
Here is the law in Alabama regarding adoptions:
“BACKGROUND: Alabama law directs the State Registrar to establish a new birth certificate after an adoption takes place. The new birth certificate is substituted for the original birth certificate in the files, and the original birth certificate and evidence of adoption are placed in a “sealed file” that previously could only be accessed by obtaining a court order (Section 22-9A-12). In 2000, the Alabama legislature amended the vital records law to allow a person 19 years of age or older whose original birth certificate was placed in a “sealed file” to obtain a non-certified copy of that record and any other documents in the “sealed file.” Therefore, the child will be able to obtain all information included on the original birth certificate including the name(s) of the parent(s) and any legal documents in the vital records file relating to the adoption.”
I happen to think the original name at birth was Barry Dunham, and was changed to Barack Obama later, that being an amendment. Another amending would have been in order when Lolo adopted Barry and must have been made at some point because Stanley Ann cited Barry as an ‘over eighteen’ child Lolo was still responsible for in her 1980 divorce pleading.
I would appreciate updates on any progress you may make in this pursuit. Thank you.
See #52
It isn’t as easy as you claim...and could very well take a court order.
http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/sealed-records/319/1.html
however, most states require the adopted person to be at least 18 years old and may also require a court order before the original birth certificate may be released.
That isn’t exactly the most difficult task under the sun. Unless we are talking about Obama’s records.
Lotsa possibilities. The only thing we know for certain is that Obama is lying.
And what would it mean if Barry made the amendments or an amendment in his adult life ... like amending his vital records to end his legal son status to Lolo who adopted him? At what age might Barry the liar have done such an amending?
The point being your claim that the original birth certificate is not amended unless the adoption happens near the time of birth.
not true, the original would be sealed even if 8 years old.
Would the government consider that an amendment? I don’t know the answer. What else would it be?
Posting the original Honolulu Advertiser article in which the Fukino statement appeared:
Posted on: Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writer
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaiçi’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago....”
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
Despite Fukino’s statement today, the issue continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves to the blogosphere.
A congressional resolution introduced by Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie commemorating the 50th anniversary of Island statehood was postponed today apparently because of a “whereas” clause noting Obama’s Hawaii birthplace.
The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;” has been construed by some who believe Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship.
So-called “birthers” denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii’s Republican governor, Linda Lingle.
Abercrombie’s office had already issued a statement today announcing the House’s unanimous approval of Abercrombie’s resolution when Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann rose today to object to the vote, saying there was not a quorum present.
Before Bachman’s objection, Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert had said some birthers believe the resolution “means the House of Representatives is on the record that Hawaii is the birthplace of the president of the United States.”
The House later voted unanimously 378 to 0 to approve the resolution.
“Fifty-five people didn’t vote for whatever reason,” Abercrombie spokesman Randy Obata said. “Apparently there was no objection in the final analysis.”
Bachman ended up voting in favor of the resolution.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/27/br/hawaii90727082.html
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.