Posted on 01/29/2010 5:39:05 PM PST by Dajjal
Red Flags in Hawaii
by butterdezillion
People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many. The same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:
1. DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) - would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.
2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records – records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.
Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born – such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama – is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).
(Excerpt) Read more at butterdezillion.wordpress.com ...
Great post! Terrific investigative work, Butter D! A mile journey is measured in inches but we’re still moving toward the finish line.
Didn’t Andy Martin from Illinois go to Hawaii and filed a law suit there???
Huh?
Looking over what seems to be presented as support for this claim, well.... I do not see how they can arrive at this conclusion.
The bulk of this stuff falls into the camp of: “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters.”
How far into silliness and self-parody is this going to descend?
Terri K asked to be given copies of receipts and invoices for Obama to amend his birth certificate. The Department of Health is required to say, for each item requested, if they don’t have what is requested. If they have it they can either release it or deny the person access. They can only deny access to something they actually have.
The DOH denied Terri K access to everything she asked for, which is a statutory admission that everything she asked for exists. Somebody paid a fee to amend Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
The first time that a fee for an amendment is mentioned is in the 1976 revision of the Administrative Rules, so the amendment was most likely made after that time.
Any amendment made to a certificate after a 90-day window after birth must be marked as amended on the face of the certificate. What Obama posted, the Certification of Live Birth, is referred to in the Administrative Rules as an “Abbreviated Birth Certificate”. If there was an amendment any certificate (either standard or abbreviated) has to have note of that amendment.
Neither Factcheck nor Fight the Smears has note of an amendment. Those images could not have come from the Hawaii Department of Health, and the DOH would have known that as soon as they looked at any of Obama’s records.
None of us could have recognized the significance of their admission to Terri K without seeing the Administrative Rules - which is why the DOH has fought hand and foot to keep from having to release those rules - which were supposed to have been public all along.
There is much, much more documentaton that could be given for every one of my points. Before I invested too much time in documenting this I needed to know that someone would be willing to publish it to the general public. If someone steps forward I will write up more complete documentation, complete with the legal ins and outs.
But if a person understands the parameters for the DOH’s legal responses, they recognize that their refusal to release those documents was HUGE. If people can see that bare statement of fact and poo-pooh it then it would be a waste of my time to do more documenting. That’s what this article was supposed to find out - if we’re beyond caring about this issue.
That said, if you believe there is an argument here, you should write it up and expand upon it.
Post it on that site where you have this other stuff, or post it here.
That’s a gracious response. I actually had my sister and a couple friends read the article and none of it made a whole lot of sense to them because they couldn’t make the connections. They haven’t followed any of this so they’re pretty similar to the average joe. So I know I do need to fill it out and explain a lot of stuff.
The difficulty is that most people don’t want to wade through the ins and outs of the law. But I can at least document the ins and outs for those who are willing to check it out - which it sounds like you are, and I’m glad you checked out the documentation even if I didn’t explain why it’s significant very well.
What there is no question about is that Hawaii hid their administrative rules until absolutely forced to post them. As I’ve dug into what they say and what it means, it makes all the sense in the world to me now. Hopefully I can explain things so it becomes clear to others as well.
Bookmark
If I can figure out how to edit using hyperlinks in Wordpress I can add this as you suggested. (Sigh. I wish I wasn’t such a computer moron.) Does this help clarify things?
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/56/
This just gets more and more interesting as time goes by, doesn’t it? I’m thinking that accomplices are being added day by day as well. If this ever goes to court I can’t imagine the lists upon lists of witnesses they’ll have to call.
When someone is digging a hole and get’s themselves into trouble, it’s time to stop digging and come clean.
Thank you. I’ve had to tell myself over and over that the outcomes are all in God’s hands and that in the end, every person is accountable to Him. Nobody “gets away with” anything. A sobering thought, and one that makes me extra glad that my sins are forgiven - the ones I know about and the ones I don’t even know to know about.
why do these links not work?
Butterdezillion, thanks for posting.
Any clues folks on why the FOIA request by Strunk to the U.S. State Dept. revealed no records found for passport usage by Stanley Ann Dunham prior to 1982?
Hmm. 1982. That would be after she divorced Soetoro.
I’m not up on this issue, but after what I’ve run into from Hawaii and the shenanigans going on at the State Dept regarding passports.... I would actually be surprised if the State Dept WASN’T covering somebody’s behind.
The US government at this point is a criminal enterprise. If we don’t clean up - seriously - this nation can’t last much longer. If the terrorists and our own stupidity don’t finish us off, God will. It’s a wonder He hasn’t already.
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.