January 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM
John Charlton: You and Leo DOnofrio might be interested in the thread on Free Republic discussing Hemenways filing of judicial notice of HI Territorial Law 57 allowing the issuance of COLBs to infants not born in HI posted by rxsid. There is also discussion pointing to reasons why the Blaine BC might actually be valid and filed under that law (Blaine discussion begins at comment #57 by rxsid, especially note my comment #121).
A plausible rationale for the notation of a 1982 statute in a footnote in the Blaine BC, which some folks jumped on to declare hoax for appearing in a 1961 document is discussed. The footnote may well have been added after 1982 in field 23, which is where alterations such as a 1982 footnote to explain the discrepancy between location of birth in Honolulu and name of hospital in Kenya would be placed.
The field 6a on the Blaine long form say Location of Birth is Honolulu, yet field 6c Name of hospital says Unknown Kenya, Africa and a post-1982 footnote says the information was provided by Grandmother. So Blaine maps perfectly to the summary Factcheck short form COLB which says location of birth is Honolulu, but that short form doesnt have a hospital name field, so the short form omits any reference to an unknown Kenya hospital.
If the Blaine BC is valid, Fukino and HI officials can state honestly that Obamas vital record says he was born in Honolulu. They might be subject to legal action by Obama under HI statutes if they were to disclose the hospital name on that same vital record is Unknown Kenya, Africa.
"Mr. Charlton replies: There are internal problems with the Blaine document, not to mention provenance issues since the one releasing it, wont confirm the release:
I wrote back on Oct. 19th, in regard to the Blaine Document: The document is also self contradictory, since a Doctor cannot certify a live birth at a foreign hospital. He has to be present to do that.
The first part is a problem, since the one releasing it won't even confirm the release.
However, as to the "Doctor" signing it. Wasn't it determined that the same person signed both boxes, 18 and 19a? If that is true, then whomever signed the "application", also signed the "Dr's" name as well. If that's true, then of course no Dr. signed certifying a live birth at a foreign hospital.