Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii's Non-Certification
5-23-12 | butterdezillion

Posted on 05/24/2012 8:20:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion

What the Hawaii AG forced Bennett to do to his request for verification:

1. Withdraw the whole form he submitted. Because the form had no special directions, HRS 338-14.3 would require the HDOH to verify the accurate, legally-probative facts, and HI can't do that for Obama because his birth record is late and amended - and thus not legally probative as per HRS 338-17.

2. Keep the request for verification that asked the HDOH to verify what is on Obama's birth record. The HDOH can do that without claiming that any of those CLAIMS on the BC are actuallly accurate or legally valid.

3. Change the request from asking for verification that what Obama posted online is a "true and accurate representation of the record on file" - to asking if the INFORMATION on what Obama posted matches what is on file. This is necessary because what Obama posted is an ABSTRACT or composite of what is typed (the incomplete BC) and what is "actually written down" (the affidavits to support the late and amended filing). And it lacks the notations that it was late and amended.

This is why they had to C&P the document. The stamps on the real thing (the non-forged version, if they have one, at the HDOh) would have filled the empty space toward the top of the BC, and the notation of what evidence was submitted to support the late filing and amendment were right in the area where the seal was supposed to go.

I'd post the article which shows the documentation, but I don't know how to post a PDF. And I'd try to get this as a blogger post that serves as a new article in the special category in News/Acivism as per the new policy, but I don't know how to do that either. I'll ask for help from the mods.

In the first comment I'll give a clickable link to the article showing the documentation.


TOPICS: FReeper Editorial
KEYWORDS: barrysoebarkah; bennett; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; hawaii; indonesia; kenya; naturalborncitizen; verification
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
To: BuckeyeTexan
...Hawaii has already stated that they do not have any laws on their books that would allow anyone physical access to the original vital records.

You missed my point.

Arizona has Constitutional power.

The Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV Section 1 gives Arizona the right to access Hawaii's public records.

The Supremacy clause of Article VI overrides Hawaii's laws on the matter of Arizona's access.

-PJ

101 posted on 05/25/2012 3:26:26 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Mame; DoctorBulldog

Is there any way I could get help from you two, to put the pieces together so we can end up with HTML code to put into a post here at FR that results in the equivalent of the PDF I posted on my blog?

On the actual post on my blog (that links to the PDF) I added 3 more links - to support the claims that Bennett had to change his request in order to get a response from HI (other than that he hadn’t proven he was eligible to get a verification). So if I could add that it would be great. I could add it to the Word document I used to create the PDF and then save it as a different PDF and post that, or you guys could insert it or whatever.

I am such a computer moron.

Thanks for any help you can give me.


102 posted on 05/25/2012 3:39:09 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Why didn’t the HDOH give a routine response to Bennett’s form requesting verification in lieu of a certified copy?

Routine response? Show me where "routine response" is defined in Hawaii statutes.

That was not a routine request to which HRS 338-14.3 refers

338-14.3 does not refer to a routine request.

338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
Bennett received:

a) the "verification of the existence of a certificate" per the above-underlined text of 338-14.3

b) the verification of "any other information" that he provided as the applicant per the above-underlined text of 338-14.3 (and they had Bennett DROP the request that WAS a routine request, for which HRS 338-14.3 applies)

No, ma'am. They did not. Nowhere in any of the email communication did anyone from Hawaii indicate in any manner, implied or otherwise, that Bennett must drop any part of his request. That is absolutely 100% factually incorrect. Bennett reworded his request on May 17th to provide the legal justification for which Hawaii asked. He did not drop any part of his March 30th request.

that is NOT a request to verify the truthful facts of the birth. And Onaka told him what was on that document - certified that this is what was on the document. Nowhere did he say that the document was legally valid.

Onaka does not have to state that the original vital record on file is legally valid because 338-14.3 stipulates that as a matter of law.

(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
You have to recognize the difference between an official verification and what Bennett asked for.

There is NO difference. 338-14.3 stipulates exactly what will be provided and that what is provided is a certification of the event and the facts. That is, by any legal definition, an "official verification."

specifically stated that those were to be items FROM THE RECORD - which is different than verifying that those items are the LEGALLY TRUE FACTS?

No, ma'am. There is no legal difference. See 338-14.3 section (b) as quoted above. The Verification is a certification of the "legally true facts."

103 posted on 05/25/2012 3:53:46 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV Section 1 gives Arizona the right to access Hawaii's public records.

It does not give them the explicit right to physically inspect original records on file. I don't know where you got that idea.

104 posted on 05/25/2012 4:02:10 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

He isn’t according to my understanding of NBC. But IANAL.


105 posted on 05/25/2012 4:05:15 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Mame; DoctorBulldog

Is there any way I could get help from you two, to put the pieces together so we can end up with HTML code to put into a post here at FR that results in the equivalent of the PDF I posted on my blog?

On the actual post on my blog (that links to the PDF) I added 3 more links - to support the claims that Bennett had to change his request in order to get a response from HI (other than that he hadn’t proven he was eligible to get a verification). So if I could add that it would be great. I could add it to the Word document I used to create the PDF and then save it as a different PDF and post that, or you guys could insert it or whatever.

I am such a computer moron.

Thanks for any help you can give me.


106 posted on 05/25/2012 4:13:30 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Can there be a “verification” that is not the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” that HRS 338-14.3 is talking about?

For instance, if I say to the HDOH, “Please verify this name and date of birth from Obama’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”: Barack Hussein Obama II, Aug 4, 1961”, would that be the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” to which HRS 338-14.3 refers?

If the HDOH verified that name and birth date - after I had specifically stated that it was supposed to be from a legally-invalid COHB - would HI’s verification of those items from the COHB actually certify that Obama was TRULY born on Aug 4, 1961? Or would they be certifying that they have a COHB which claims that?


107 posted on 05/25/2012 4:29:39 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I should have pinged you to this one. Sorry.


108 posted on 05/25/2012 4:33:49 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

OK, one other question: Have you even read the PDF? I gave my reasoning for how we know that Bennett dropped the request on the actual form, and it never claimed that the requirement to drop the actual request form was in the emails.

Bennett said he got what he had asked for and he clearly did NOT get what he originally asked for. On the form he submitted he asked for “C = legally valid”. What he got was A=B. And that was regarding the critical pieces of information for determining Presidential eligibility.


109 posted on 05/25/2012 4:50:10 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Can there be a “verification” that is not the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” that HRS 338-14.3 is talking about?

Not that I can find anywhere in Hawaii statues. One can ask for a certified copy of various types of certificates or a verification in lieu of a certified copy.

110 posted on 05/25/2012 4:56:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Can there be a “verification” that is not the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” that HRS 338-14.3 is talking about?

Not that I can find anywhere in Hawaii statues. One can ask for a certified copy of various types of certificates or a verification in lieu of a certified copy.

111 posted on 05/25/2012 4:56:50 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Check your Freepmail for further instructions.

Cheers


112 posted on 05/25/2012 5:00:12 PM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Obama Sucks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
So what DOES "full faith and credit" mean then, if the Consitution also says that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof?"

That sounds to me like physical access is allowed for, if the Framers gave Congress to power the prescribe the manner to determine how such records are proved. In the absence of Congress acting, who's to say that Arizona can't decide on its own how Hawaii's records are proved? The 10th Amendment will allow Arizona to act, with Articles IV and VI on its side.

So here's how it works out.

1. Arizona claims "full faith and credit" to prove Hawaii's records for itself.
2. Hawaii refuses.
3. Arizona goes to the Supreme Court to force Hawaii to comply with full faith and credit because SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in matters between States.
4. SCOTUS will kick it Congress because the Constitution provides for another remedy before SCOTUS is compelled to act.
5. Congress waffles because it's an election year. The House looks at it but Boehner goes soft. Reid in the Senate says "full faith and what?"
6. Arizona, asserting itself as a sovereign goes back to Hawaii and demands that in the absence of Congress exercising his check and balance to lay out the manner of proving the public record, says that it still has full faith and credit power to inspect the records and goes back to SCOTUS.
7. SCOTUS...?

-PJ

113 posted on 05/25/2012 5:13:53 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; butterdezillion
BT

I know I am probably not near as smart as you but there are a few things that seem probable to me.

This fellow Onaka seems to have said that, yes, we have a file. And he said certain info in their file matches what is in the WH PDF. And it just might. And that file may only contain what grandma provided along with an affidavit swearing the info was true, whether it is or not. Just as the newspaper notifications contained info grandma provided, true or not (almost certainly not). And that may be the “vital record”. And it may be false as hell. But it is their record.

Onaka also went to great length NOT to say the PDF was an official legal document provided by the State of Hawaii, because it probably isn't. But Hawaii probably has many false “vital records” and they would rather not go there.

So they did a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants and hoped it would just go away. And tried real hard not to make any sworn false statements as they did so.

We know (if you can believe anything Barry ever said) Barry was adopted and his name changed, and that never came up in any of this.

So Onaka did say certain thing in the PDF match their record, not including the date of birth. He did not say what doesn't match, or even that the PDF is a real document.

BDZ

There was this in the response:

5. Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital

So far as I know Kapiolani has never claimed this to be true, and sure has never bragged that the first POTUS from Hawaii was born in their facility.

I have read that they have no such record and really don't want to discuss it.

114 posted on 05/25/2012 5:42:17 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

The fact enough American’s do not DEMAND Obama show absolute proof of his eligibility and other records is just tragic apathy!


It’s tragic Alinskyism, not apathy. Anyone questioning is carefully, consistently, and conscientiously MOCKED TO WITHIN AN INCH OF HIS LIFE.

Thus joe and Jill public assume that there is nothing to see here; that even questioning is ridiculous. Literally.

Alinsky was right. Most people would rather be beaten up than mocked.


115 posted on 05/25/2012 5:47:06 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Yes, I read it. I disagree with your conclusions. Bennett did not drop any part of his request and he did get everything he asked for and more.

Yes, the form to request a certified copy of the birth certificate includes the date and place of birth and the parents’ names. (It also includes gender, which you have not mentioned.) That information is required so the HDoH can uniquely identify the birth certificate for which the verification is being requested.

338-14.3 stipulates that the applicant will receive a verification of the existence of a certificate. If Bennett had submitted only that one form, he likely would have received a verification limited to: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” And according to section (b) of 338-14.3, that verification would certify the event itself and the facts supplied on the form. 338-14.3 does not require the HDoH to restate the data submitted on the form.

338-14.3 does, however, require the HDoH to specifically verify “any other” information supplied, which they did. So had Bennett specifically included the date and time of birth, parents’ names, and gender with the other 10 items he requested, he likely would have gotten specific verification for those individual items.

Bennett didn’t ask specifically for verification of the name of the delivering physician, but he got a verification for it nonetheless when he asked them to verify that the WH LFBC was a true and accurate representation of the original vital record. Hawaii responded that the information (all of it by implication) matches what is on file in their original. So they verified the name of the delivering physician and everything else on the LFBC.


116 posted on 05/25/2012 5:51:18 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson

This pees me off!! Mods, Butterdezillion is EXACTLY the kind of conservative sleuth with original research that could save this nation. Please post this in the original op Ed research sidebar immediately!!

This is important stuff that must not get crumpled into the bottom of the fr bin. It may be hard to understand but that is only because the corruption involved here by the Hawaiian officials is that devious. It’s worth the efforts of important people to understand this and disseminate it.

Obama is counting on us NOT SPREADING THESE FACTS. Please post it in the right place.


117 posted on 05/25/2012 5:56:41 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; butterdezillion
And that may be the “vital record”. And it may be false as hell. But it is their record.

I will stipulate that that could very well be the case. As an aside, we have established that Obama does not have a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Hawaii released a list of those and the names Obama, Soetoro, and Dunham were not on it. (Post & Email has it, I think.)

I tend to think that if Grandma supplied Kapiolani as the place of birth that the registrar would not have accepted and filed the BC without verification directly from the hospital and/or the delivering physician, but who really knows? We can only speculate. Hawaii has probably committed much fraud with respect to birth certificates because more citizens equates to more federal dollars. I don't believe Hawaii is innocent in all of this.

118 posted on 05/25/2012 6:15:48 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Did Fukino ever “verify” that they had a birth certificate for Obama - as reported in just about every news report in the country? Like in her announcements? What were those, anyway? Where in the statutes does it cover those press releases? How does it describe them?


119 posted on 05/25/2012 6:22:09 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

I *think* that if Congress has not specifically provided for “physical inspection” that SCOTUS would defer to Hawaii’s laws regarding access because the records belong to Hawaii not Arizona.

But, I could be totally wrong because the federal courts recently forced Louisiana to modify one of their original vital records to include the names of a gay couple as the adoptive parents on a new birth certificate for an adoption that took place in New York. (Louisiana does not allow gay couples to adopt.)


120 posted on 05/25/2012 6:26:40 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Here, again, is that press release from Oct 31, 2008:

———————— BEGIN STATEMENT ————————————
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR

CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”
###
For more information, contact:
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Phone: (808) 586-4442
———————— END STATEMENT ————————————

What was that? Was it a verification? And where is it covered in the statutes?


121 posted on 05/25/2012 6:31:06 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
And here is the statement on July 27, 2009 (found at http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf ): “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 Barack 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.” Was that a verification of place of birth? Was it a verification of what is on "vital records"? Where is that covered in the statutes? Is Fukino herself verifying the fact of a Hawaii birth, or is the verifying that there are records which verify (swear to) a Hawaii birth? How is what Onaka just did any different than what Fukino did for every person in the country - eligible or not, according to HRS 338-18 (aside from the number of items she disclosed from the "vital records")?
122 posted on 05/25/2012 6:37:56 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

It’s a press release. It’s not a verification in lieu of a certified copy.


123 posted on 05/25/2012 6:38:35 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; advertising guy
FYI: Sheriff Joe's posse: 'Hawaii duped Arizona' New article from Corsi extensively quoting Zullo, who rather harshly condemns Bennett and HDOH for their roles in the "verification" flap.
124 posted on 05/25/2012 6:47:27 PM PDT by ecinkc (ugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I don't believe Hawaii is innocent in all of this.

Neither do I. I may not be from Texas, but I know Bull$hit when I smell it. This whole exchange between AZ and HI is a big steaming pile of it. Stay safe!

125 posted on 05/25/2012 6:51:51 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Great thread! Thanks!


126 posted on 05/25/2012 6:59:48 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

You’re not digesting what I have said.

In his original request Bennett asked for 3 things - and I clearly said this in the PDF so why am I even repeating it here?

1. From the submitted form: Verification that they have a legally valid BC for Barack Hussein Obama II, and that he was born in Honolulu, HI on Aug 4, 1961 to mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and father Barack Hussein Obama... (asking for verification that C (this particular claim) is legally valid/true - a “verification in lieu of a certified copy”)

2. From the special request: Verification that the record they have on file has those 10 (or however many) items he specifically listed. (Verification of what is on B)

3. From the special request: Verification that the BC Obama posted publicly is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. (verification that A=B)

The only one of those that is a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” is #1. They never did #1. You keep arguing that #3 is the same as #1. It’s not, because they have never said that EITHER A or B is legally valid. They could be the same and both be as false as the day is long. Even if they HAD said that A was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” it STILL wouldn’t verify that either A or B was legally valid/true - but they wouldn’t even go THAT far. So they never did #1.

They did #2, which was just to verify what is on B (the record on file - AGAIN, no verification of whether what’s in the file is legally valid/true).

They never did #3. They verified that the INFORMATION on A matches B. That doesn’t mean that everything on B is also on A, and it doesn’t mean that A is in the same form as B. (As I’ve mentioned, this leaves open the distinct possibility/probability that B has content on it that A doesn’t have - such as LATE and ALTERED stamps and notations of affidavits to support the late and amended filing. And their refusal to answer Bennett’s request as originally asked suggests that they NEEDED to keep that possibility open).

So of Bennett’s original request, only #2 got done. Yet Bennett says he got what he asked for. That means in his final “re-worded” request he never asked for #1 and #3. Based on what Bennett himself said, that has to be the conclusion. That’s logic 101.

Like a proof. Let’s make this a 6th-grade logic question:

1. Bennett originally asked for #1, #2, and #3.
2. Bennett said he had to “re-word” his request.
3. Bennett got #2.
4. Bennett said he got what he asked for.

THEREFORE...... what did Bennett ask for, and how was that different from his original request?


127 posted on 05/25/2012 7:04:10 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

But we also know that the HDOH altered their 1960-64 birth index to include legally non-valid records. They could easily have done something similar with their list of COHB’s, to remove Obama’s name.

I’ve based a lot of my conclusions on the basis of stuff that Hawaii has said, but I realize that they could have lied to me in everything they said. They could have falsified every record they’ve got. So the most I can say is, “Based on what HI has revealed, there are big-time discrepancies and we need to see the original paper documents, the microfilms, and the complete computer transaction logs and vital records history - stuff that can’t be so easily falsified and is thus more trustworthy than the people we’ve already caught lying and falsifying records.”

That’s all I’ve asked, and it’s all the posse is asking.

I’ve posted elsewhere the link for a report by the HHS inspector general which says that a birth certificate should not be enough to verify a person’s eligibility for various things, and especially if much is at stake. (And half the political world is saying that there’s not enough at stake and the other half saying too much is at stake, for real investigation to be done...)

It also says that if there are ANY signs of tampering, then a complete audit of all the vital and citizenship records should be done. Just the alteration of the 1960-64 birth index is enough to require a complete audit of all Obama’s records (as well as anybody else’s on that list - which is why it’s such a STUPID and BAD thing for them to mess with this stuff; it blows the credibility of the whole thing all to heck).


128 posted on 05/25/2012 7:12:58 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Why did she use the word “verify”?


129 posted on 05/25/2012 7:14:19 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

Mike’s got a good head on his shoulders. I look forward to their press conference after Mike gets back to AZ and catches Arpaio up to speed.


130 posted on 05/25/2012 7:21:12 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I admire you so much, and am praying for you..this post about your quilts is beautiful ! Maybe somehow could give you a blog name... thanks for all you do/have done for our beloved country


131 posted on 05/25/2012 8:58:48 PM PDT by flowergirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
You’re not digesting what I have said.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am not digesting what you said. I understand fully what you have said. Your whole premise is faulty and therefore so is your resulting "6th grade logic." (Your words, not mine.)

The only one of those that is a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” is #1.

That is absolutely factually incorrect. HRS 338-14.3 stipulates that the "Verification in lieu of a certified copy" has TWO parts: (1) the verification of the existence of a certificate AND (2) verification of any other information the applicant supplies.

338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
They never did #1.

Yes, they most certainly did. Onaka's statement ...

I verify the following:

1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

... satisfies the FIRST part of the TWO-part verification. He confirmed the existence of a certificate.

There is NO NEED for Onaka to individually list the items submitted on the request form (e.g. date and time of birth, parents' names, gender, etc.) in that statement because section (b) of HRS 338-14.3 stipulates that the facts of the event are AS STATED by the applicant. If the facts were not accepted by Onaka "as stated by the applicant" on the request form, Onaka could not provide a verification that the requested certificate exists, much less verify the 10 specific items requested.

(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
If you cannot agree with the above, there is no reason for me to address the remainder of your points. We have to come to an understanding of the law regarding item #1 (the request form) before we can move forward.

I'm going to bed. G'night, butter. I'll check this thread in the morning.

132 posted on 05/25/2012 9:34:55 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I agree that they verified the existence of a record for Obama. But they never provided information about the vital event because they never responded to the request FORM. They DID provide information about what was ON the record they have.

Those are the exact same things that Fukino did in her 2 announcements. In her first announcement she personally verified that they have a record for Obama. In her second she said that the VITAL RECORDS (plural) verify (which legally means “swears to”) that Obama was born in Hawaii.

In this document Onaka (or, more correctly, some lower-level staffer; see the closing paragraph of this comment) does the exact same thing. He says he personally verifies the existence of a record (without saying it is a legally-valid record, which has been the question all along, as they well know). Points 2-11 don’t say whether it is he who is verifying (like Fukino’s first release) or whether it is the record that is verifying (like Fukino’s 2nd release); there is no sentence whatsoever to clarify that (such as “and I verify that the facts of birth are the following:” or “and the record states the following:”). But the certifying statement placed by a lower-level staffer says that this verification used the INFORMATION in the record to “verify” (swear to) those items.

And the request that Bennett initially gave about this one part that HI actually responded to clarified that he wanted them to verify that those items were FROM THE RECORD. He was not asking them to verify the true facts; he specifically stated that he wanted them to verify FROM THE RECORD - that those claims were on the record.

You are the one who is saying that Bennett’s re-wording was only about why he was or wasn’t eligible to receive a verification. Here, again, is the request:

” In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth....”

The attached form was a request specifically for “verification in lieu of a certified copy” and was governed by HRS 338-14.3. The only part of that which Onaka’s response actually did was to verify the existence of a record. Nothing else from that verification form was done.

In addition to that, Bennett asked them to verify that some specific items were on the birth record. That WAS responded to.

Do you recognize the difference between the form request and the ADDITIONAL request? The form is the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” that HRS 338-14.3 refers to. The ADDITIONAL request is for items specifically FROM THE RECORD - which WOULD be verification of the legal facts if that record was legally valid, but nowhere does Bennett state that the record must be legally valid and nowhere does Onaka state that the record IS legally valid. Without knowing that the record is legally valid, all this tells us is that those are the claims on the record - NOT that those claims are legally valid.

And as Mike Zullo points out in a WND article linked by somebody else, the initials that initialed the certifying statement by Onaka are not Onaka’s so Onaka has wiggle room to say that he didn’t even personally see or sign this - just some lower-level staffer. Legal rear-covering that renders the document legally useless. Some unidentified staffer is the only person who claims to have actually seen and stamped this “verification”; Onaka DIDN’T put his personal neck on the line.


133 posted on 05/26/2012 5:17:57 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; All; BuckeyeTexan

I’m working on re-posting this, with the PDF itself posted as HTML. But as I’m dealing with Buckeye Texan I’m wondering if the post should address what she’s saying, although it seems like she’s just saying “You’re wrong” without addressing why the items from the form were not verified (given that a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” is specifically required by HRS 338-14.3 to verify the LEGAL FACTS, not just what appears on a record that may or may not be legally valid).

Do I need to explain the difference between a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” (Please verify that these facts are legally true) and an additional request to verify what items are on a record and/or to verify that the information on a document matches what is on the record (which may or may not be legally valid)?

My post is mainly about the changes made to the request, based on Bennett saying he got what he asked for, and what those changes indicate. BT doesn’t seem to be willing to address that. My point is that those changes make it clear that HI bought itself some massive wiggle room. BT wants to argue about whether wiggle room exists at all, without addressing why those changes WERE made - changes she refuses to acknowledge or address.

So I’m asking the group - have I inadequately addressed the changes that were made, or is BT just ignoring what I addressed? And it might be best to answer the question vie private Freepmail so there’s not a public confrontation between BT and me, but communication that can be helpful to me so I know what would be most helpful. BT just doesn’t buy what I’m saying, which is not a crime. What I want to know is whether there is more that I can do to address objections that people like her might have.

Thanks!


134 posted on 05/26/2012 5:36:41 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The “6th-grade logic” was a question to you, and you didn’t answer it. Let me state it again:

Let’s make this a 6th-grade logic question:

1. Bennett originally asked for #1, #2, and #3.
2. Bennett said he had to “re-word” his request.
3. Bennett got #2.
4. Bennett said he got what he asked for.

THEREFORE...... what did Bennett ask for, and how was that different from his original request?

When my just-finished-6th-grade daughter gets back from playing tennis I’ll ask her this question and see what she says. If anybody else wants to do the same, I’d be interested in hearing the responses.


135 posted on 05/26/2012 5:41:47 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I just brought my 4 kids into my room, one by one and not letting them talk to each other about the question. The grades they just completed are 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th grades.

They all said Bennett asked for #2 and that was different from his original request because he dropped the request for #1 and #3.


136 posted on 05/26/2012 6:30:37 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

None so blind as those who do not want to see; quite simple. Or even “don’t want others to see”, even more so.


137 posted on 05/26/2012 12:19:03 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

HRS 338-14.3 was amended in 2010, so it probably wouldn’t have applied in 2008 when Fukino made that statement. Regardless, 338-18 already has language regarding verifications being issued in leiu of certified copies of records so I’m curious what 338-14.3 originally said and why and how it was amended in 2010. Plus, with all the information that is contained in that verification, why can’t Hawaii simply issue a full copy of the actual birth record?? There shouldn’t be anything left to protect and as has always been the case, this would be at the discretion of the director of health and protected under the UIPA. There’s no compelling legal reason for Hawaii to keep treating the original record as a protected record unless it contains information that is inaccurate or that has been redacted by Obama through his forgeries.


138 posted on 05/26/2012 10:28:57 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Good catch. I didn’t even notice that. I, too, wonder how that was changed. I wonder if the 2010 session of HI’s legislature is recent enough that the bill would be on the http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov website. That bill was probably passed about the same time as the “vexatious requestor” bill...


139 posted on 05/27/2012 6:05:06 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I agree that they verified the existence of a record for Obama. But they never provided information about the vital event because they never responded to the request FORM.

The above two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other.

According to HRS 338-14.3 (a) & (b), the act of verifying the existence of a record is legal affirmation that the facts as stated on the request form by the applicant are what is on file and is legal certification that the events did occur.

You do not seem to understand that very basic legal fact.

140 posted on 05/27/2012 11:16:14 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Bennett submitted a request form that stated the following facts about a vital record:

By law (HRS 338-14.3), Onaka's one-sentence statement verifying the existence of a record on file certifies each and every fact supplied by Bennett on the request form.
141 posted on 05/27/2012 11:16:43 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I thought Obama was Native American


142 posted on 05/27/2012 11:18:52 AM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

As I understand the argument
Butter is saying the Hawaiian replies to the initial request from Arizona were lawyered to death and are therefore meaningless

You are saying that Hawaii replied regardless

Can you see any reason Hawaii would ask for a change in the initial request?


143 posted on 05/27/2012 11:26:00 AM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Please don’t waste anymore of your time responding to me. I have explained, in detail, repeatedy, why your premise and logic are wrong.

You keep repeating that the items on the request form were not verified. They WERE verified and I’ve explained HOW they were verified.

I said earlier that if you can’t come to understand the law regarding item #1, there is no need for us to discuss your points #2 & #3.

It’s a holiday weekend. Enjoy it with your family. I will do the same. Let’s part ways amicably agreeing to disagree.


144 posted on 05/27/2012 11:30:56 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: woofie

I’m saying Hawaii verified everything for which Bennett asked, did so according to HRS 338-14.3, and that their response was meaningful not worthless.

They did not ask for any such change. They asked Bennett to prove he had a legitimate governmental need for the verification. He provided that on May 17th. He did not drop any part of his original request.

He received verification for everything he requested. Butter simply does not understand the statute she cites as it applies to the “request form” and therefore she draws errant conclusions based on a faulty premise.

(I am not copying her on this because I’ve asked her to enjoy time with her family this holiday weekend. I do not want to responsible for taking her time away from her kids.)


145 posted on 05/27/2012 11:43:03 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Not being versed in legalize (rhymes with sleaze) I cannot decipher much of the original documents.

I assume however that lawyers dealing with all this leave no room for error as their asses are on the line

In short I can no longer separate wheat from chaff in any of this.

Maybe I never could


146 posted on 05/27/2012 11:55:34 AM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Last I think this entire matter is more politics than legal at this points,
That is not to say its not equally important, especially before an election.
I think the question of Obamas ability to claim title of President of the US is dead in the water..... But there are lots of other reasons to look at Obama’s birth mysteries. I think that Ms Warren,the native American Harvard scholar in Mass is a prime example of what should be looked at


147 posted on 05/27/2012 12:05:21 PM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

A verification of the existence of a record is just that: verification of the existence of a record.

A verification of an August 4, 1961 birth is a legal certification that there was an August 4, 1961 birth.

But Hawaii sort of skipped that part...

The only specific items they would verify is that they have a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama II which “indicates” a birth in Honolulu, HI. What is the legal significance of “indicates” - particularly when the standard term would be “verifies”?

Why did they not use the standard language of saying they have a legally-valid birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii verifying the place of birth as Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu?

After that item, they started a whole new list using a different format and beginning with “Name of person: Barack Hussein Obama II”. Re-stating the name separates item 1 from the rest of the items on that list. Item 1 is the only thing they did that pertains to the actual request for a “verification in lieu of a certified copy”. The DOH website (at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html ) says that

“Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. “

The other (”in addition to”) request was to “please verify the following items FROM THE RECORD OF BIRTH” (emphasis mine). You’ve never responded to my question about whether a verification of something from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth would mean that the State was certifying the truthfulness of the claims on a COHB. That’s a critical question. If Bennett had left off the “from the record of birth”, then I could possibly see your point. But by stating that it was to be verified from the record of birth, he’s just asking them to confirm that those items were claimed on the record. That says nothing about the legal validity of the record or the claims on that record.


148 posted on 05/27/2012 12:16:20 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

That’s not the way it works. They verify individual items.

If, for instance, Bennett had put “Gender: Female” on that form, would HI still have verified that a birth certificate is on file? If so, then how would they make it clear that they are NOT verifying that the gender was female?

See, for the requestor to end up with a document that certifies anything, there has to be something on that document that shows exactly what is being certified. A certification that says, “I certify that everything you said is true” means nothing, because there’s no way to know what exactly is meant by “everything you said”.

The only thing that Onaka (or whoever put his stamp on this paper and then initialed it with indistinct initials) personally “verified” out of those 12 items was that they have a birth certificate on file for Barack Hussein Obama II which “indicates” a Honolulu, HI birth. The rest was not spoken in sentences or with any kind of statement of what it means.


149 posted on 05/27/2012 12:31:35 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

We’ll have to disagree because I’m asking clarifying questions and not getting responses to them.

Specific items from the request form are verified in a standard request. The HDOH did not verify those things. They verified the existence of a birth certificate which “indicates” a Honolulu, HI birth. Doesn’t “verify” a Honolulu, HI birth - just “indicates”. IOW, all that is being verified in #1 is the existence of a birth certificate. You’ve tried to say that all their legal tap-dancing shows that everything on Obama’s posted long-form has been verified as the accurate, legally valid truth. I disagree, and I’ve shown why - as well as asking clarifying questions to help you understand why your claims don’t make sense. You won’t answer those clarifying questions.

But my larger question for you - which you also refuse to even address - is why they DID all that legal tapdancing, if it all adds up to the same thing as them saying, “I verify that the State of HI has on file a legally valid, state-issued birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II and I verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, a male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI on Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama”?

You keep saying the same stuff over and over. I keep asking questions that you don’t answer. Clearly we’re not having a conversation. You’re right that it is a waste of time for me to respond to you.


150 posted on 05/27/2012 12:44:14 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson