Posted on 05/24/2012 8:20:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion
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?
It’s a press release. It’s not a verification in lieu of a certified copy.
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!
Great thread! Thanks!
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?
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).
Why did she use the word “verify”?
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.
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
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.They never did #1.
(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.
Yes, they most certainly did. Onaka's statement ...
I verify the following:... satisfies the FIRST part of the TWO-part verification. He confirmed the existence of a certificate.1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
None so blind as those who do not want to see; quite simple. Or even “don’t want others to see”, even more so.
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.
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...
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.
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.