Posted on 01/26/2011 4:50:51 PM PST by chatter4
If this were accomplished (above) there should be a means by which to prove the insertion.
And even that is dubious.
If I would never say, “I called Rob’s house and Rob said”, by mistake.
I would say,”I called Rob’s house and his wife said that he couldn’t find the BC”
I not sure about the take back. I think he meant just what he said.
I have no way to prove HOW or WHEN they printed these, just that it was indeed done this way. The researcher stated that she did not run across this same anomaly on any other page or in any of the other books she viewed. Since these are loose bound “volumes”, individual pages can be, and are, removed. That happened also when the researcher requested to be shown the page obama was listed on. She had already actually seen the page, but I had asked her to make the request specifically - we didn’t know the clerk would remove the entire page from the book.
It’s like my newspaper birth announcement research-the only time that both Honolulu newspapers printed the names in the birth notices in the exact same descending order was on the dates that obama’s notice appeared.
I shall admit I do not know how the methods for proof are done, yet I know those methods exist. You may be on a trail leading somewhere. Who, What, Where, and to What degree just yet, I do not know though. Good Luck.
>>I not sure about the take back. I think he meant just what he said.<<
I think he was name-dropping, and got called on it. But I wouldn’t bet my life on it. ;)
PING!!
It would involve seeing the transaction log for the records, and the HDOH says that it would “frustrate a legitimate government purpose” to disclose those. IOW, they’re too busy.
Just like they were too busy at the OIP to tell Miss Tickly whether a denial of access is an admission that the records exist (which they had already told her over 4 times already).
And like they told me they had a backlog of 6-8 weeks, when they had just 6 weeks earlier been totally on time with a request I had made - meaning if they were backlogged 6-8 weeks they hadn’t done a THING for the last 6 weeks. lol
On a slightly different note - has anyone (Corsi, Cashill, Miss Tickly or you) gone through the Washington State or Vancouver, Canada archives/birth registers/hospital records to see if there is any trace of a baby Dunham or Obama recorded?
So he confirms that the connecting thread throughout this entire birth certificate/eligibility problem comes down to one single fact:
Democrats always lie.
How does one misspeak for 5 minutes?
And didn’t he bring the topic up himself? They were talking about a whole bunch of hollywood gunk, and then Mike segues into the whole Neil A. stuff. “Searched everywhere using his power as Governor”, sounds like a first person conversation.
I have difficulty believing that some little flunky office worker would chat up Mike, and offer all of that info.
Still the weird thing to me is that Mike introduced the topic into the conversation, out of the blue. That’s what is so glaringly peculiar about this.
I thought this was a strange claim under the UIPA to avoid disclosure. The logical claim would be 92F-13(1) unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or (4) records that are protected from disclosure under state law. By citing (3) frustration of a legitimate government function, it's not because they were too busy. Disclosing the record takes no more busy time than providing records to individual requestors. It would eliminate multiple requests for this same document once it is publicly disclosed.
This made me wonder, then how disclosing ONE vital record would frustrate a legitimate government function. The only things I can think of would relate to the sealing of adoption records (which should fall under No. 4) and the revelation of a systemic problem in which it becomes clear that the DOH records births and issues COLBS that are not fully documented. IOW, they would expose severe incompetence, which isn't really a legitimate government function.
I sent a request to King County in Washington. IIRC, index records are kept in each county. They said they didn’t have anything under Obama or Dunham.
BTW, such index records in Washington state INCLUDE the certificate number which is available to the public. Hawaii had this same practice too when their index data item was added to their disclosure law. At some point, certificate numbers were removed as the default index data (for no clear reason), but it is NOT prohibited from disclosure by law. The director of the DOH has discretionary authority to release that data, yet when pressed about the legitimate owner of the cert no. on the factlack dot org COLB, the DOH refuses to confirm who that number belongs to. Odds are that it does not belong to Obama.
Seems like incompetence and/or corruption is what those folks CONSIDER the legitimate function of bureaucracy.
The question is how the rest of the states can protect themselves from the politically corrupt places of the world being points of entry for genuine enemies of this country to get access in order to do their damage.
I think it was in the LA Times article about Abercrombie wanting to “torpedo” the “birthers”, where he was trying to use the “racist” accusation - saying that this was personal to him because people only think he’s not American because he was born in Hawaii and we’re all racists against Hawaii.
It’s funny how the leftists always project onto others what they themselves are doing.
The people who live in Hawaii can get a long-form birth certificate within 7 days of stopping in and ordering it at the HDOH office. But the HDOH tells all us haoles everywhere else that they won’t do it.
Anybody in Hawaii can go look at the index records, but us haoles who live elsewhere have to request records by certified mail (since they claim they didn’t receive anything not sent with delivery confirmation, and even those with delivery confirmation).
So it is they who are using different standards for the local people versus those living in the continental US.
What Abercrombie is doing is saying that it is racist for the rest of us to wonder exactly what kind of corruption is going on there in the islands. With all the discrepancies in the stories and all the documented law-breaking and rule-breaking, it is reasonable for us to say WTF. He knows that, so he’s already trying to frame it as racist.
Thank You for the update.
No- if we listen carefully, at roughly 1:28 in the recording Evans says” ..yesterday, talking to Neil’s office, Neil says he’s searched everywhere...and there is no birth certificate”...
So what he said was he talked to Neil’s OFFICE.. Neil SAYS- NOT Neil told me.
It’s semantics, I know, but listening carefully to this recording multiple times Evans has referenced a call with Neil’s office - but not Neil himself.
What does it all mean? Who knows- but now the onus is on Abercrombie himself to clear this up- it would also be useful to know exactly with WHOM Evans spoke in “Neil’s office”...
What do you think of THIS?
Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie’s Health Director Quits:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/27/politics/main7288553.shtml
Well here’s a different recording- different radio show Evans did and in THIS one he DOES say “Yesterday I talked to Neil..”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2664299/posts
So I guess since he does the same bit every day for many different radio stations we have several recordings to listen to...
At the link you’ll have to go a little under half way to hear the pertinent part of the show.
Makes me wonder what’s up. There were reports that he was under investigation and then there were denials that he was under investigation. Sounds like he didn’t say why he resigned.
The timing of it is definitely interesting though. Does this mean there is no Health Dept Director at a time when people are wondering what the heck Fukino was saying in her previous announcements?
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.