Replies

The form “approved by the department” is referring to a form for a certified abstract of an adoption decree. It has nothing to do with a birth certificate. It only has to do with how the HDOH knows they are authorized to create a supplemental BC.

And you still don’t seem to grasp the fact that anything the HDOH would create after an adoption would be on a genuine piece of paper. Obama’s forgery was not created by scanning a complete certified copy of ANYTHING. What was posted online did NOT come from the HDOH. Period. The HDOH would not have to reveal anything about adoption whatsoever - or reveal anything that is on Obama’s BC either, for that matter - in order to say, “What was posted on the White House website was not a scan of the certified copy we sent him.”

And unless Fuddy was the attorney for Obama there was no attorney-client privilege to shield her from the responsibility to set the record straight AT LEAST based on the Federal General False Statement Act, if not also federal and state misprision laws.

You’re desperately trying to get adoption to be able to explain the problems, but as you’ve acknowledged yourself from the fact that your own supplemental BC doesn’t act like Obama’s scan, adoption cannot explain the fact of this forgery nor the HDOH’s refusal to clarify that what Obama posted was not what they have in their office for him.

If the HDOH is so interested in following the laws, as you seem so ready to believe of them - then why will they not even allow Duncan Sunahara to see his sister’s original birth certificate - as REQUIRED by both HRS 338-18 and UIPA? What is your explanation for that?

I have dealt with these people. I could talk until your ears can’t listen any more regarding the laws and rules they have broken with reckless abandon. To believe they are acting lawfully and honestly because of an adoption - when it’s been pointed out repeatedly that adoption cannot explain what is observed, and in spite of the lawlessness they’ve already been caught in - makes no sense to me. Why are you clinging to faith in them, when they’ve already shown such bad faith?

Just as an example, you mention that the HDOH can’t disclose anything about adoptions. Then why did they disclose on their 1960-64 birth index the BIRTH names for Norman and Nathan Asing, when they had both been adopted, their legally-valid BC’s are under different names, and the BC’s having those birth names are supposed to be sealed so that the public can have no knowledge about the adoptions? That’s an example where the HDOH has been caught acting in bad faith/illegally in the case of 2 adoptions. Actually caught manipulating what they call an official record (the birth index).

If they would illegally do that, what WOULDN’T they illegally do?

I understand that the end product is a piece of paper, but the intermediate product will be an editable file, most likely a photoshop or PDF sort of file. I will also point out that my own birth certificate appears to be entirely printed, and contains no separate hand stamp.

Within the normal application of Hawaiian state law, I believe she can claim she has not made any false statements. I would expect that she would be very careful about this.

You’re desperately trying to get adoption to be able to explain the problems, but as you’ve acknowledged yourself from the fact that your own supplemental BC doesn’t act like Obama’s scan,

I did not say that. I said I had no means of testing this idea. I did point out that the Cold Case posse did test this idea, and their results were different from the Obama birth certificate file.

adoption cannot explain the fact of this forgery nor the HDOH’s refusal to clarify that what Obama posted was not what they have in their office for him.

I may be completely wrong about this, but it is my understanding that it is ILLEGAL for the DOH to confirm or deny anything without permission regarding the private records of it's citizens. (Private by Hawaiian law, anyway.) They are under no legal obligation to disclose anything, and they are under legal penalties if they do.

My explanation for that is that they are obviously not worried about their violation of the law in this case because they do not regard this issue as a threat to themselves, but the prospect of them being held to account for any breaking of the law regarding the President's documents is a far greater probability.

Rest assured, if we, (or the Obama supporters on the opposite side) can find sufficient evidence that they have obviously broken a law in such a way that it cannot be ignored, we will hold them to account. If they leaked some derogatory information off of Obama's real birth certificate and it could be traced back to them, the Democrats on the other side would eat them for breakfast.

They must walk tightrope of the law to avoid retaliation from either side, and I am suggesting that is exactly what they are doing. For the Sunahara case, they look at him as a schmoe who can't really do anything to them. It sucks, but that's what I think is happening to him.

I don't have any faith in them. I have faith in their fear of punishment and their disinclination to do anything that will leave their neck sticking out. They are more afraid of the Democrats than they are of us. It's that simple.

I call it bureaucratic incompetence. Divulging information regarding adoptions is illegal. Hawaii has a LARGE section of law on the secrecy of adoptions. If they divulged information, then they screwed up, and the individual could sue them in civil court. (I am certain that no prosecutor would bring charges against them in criminal court.)

If they would illegally do that, what WOULDN’T they illegally do?

I have no doubt that they will commit unintentional illegalities, or make mistakes that result in an illegality being committed, and I am inclined to believe that they will in fact commit ACTUAL illegalities, with knowledgeable aforethought providing that they believe they won't be caught at it.

There are allegations out there that claim Hawaiian officials are running a American Citizenship scam for profit by registering foreign born children with Hawaiian birth certificates. It is alleged that this has been going on for a long time, and there seems to be circumstantial evidence to support this allegation.

However, most of these events happen without close scrutiny, and so are therefore low risk to them. Committing illegalities regarding the President's birth records is a different matter entirely. In this case, there is a real chance of being discovered to have committed an illegality, and a real chance of getting a prison sentence out of it.

I believe that the fear of such a thing happening will keep them on the technically lawful side of the equation. Morally wrong, but legally correct.