Posted on 07/17/2012 9:08:06 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
Edited on 07/17/2012 9:17:36 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse investigating Barack Obama
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks.
We’ve got FReepes on the ground!
Does post #556 on this thread nail it?
A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm. The Department of Justice is responsible for criminal prosecutions under the Privacy Rule.
Who do you think is going to sue the facility? Barack Obama’s executive branch? Barack Obama? Stanley Dunham?
The Department of Justice is responsible for criminal prosecutions under the Privacy Rule.Above two quotes from the HHS website.
Is there a fine?
As above, the fine could be as high as 250,000 if it is judged to be for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm.
Will the facility be closed?
No. Fined, with the possibility of those responsible serving jail terms.
The patient is dead. Does HIPAA cover dead people?
Yes. See this article.
AZ Secretary of State requested that the HI DOH verify as true the following birth facts: gender male, DOB Aug 4, 1961, city of birth Honolulu, HI, island of birth Oahu, mother’s name Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, father’s name Barack Hussein Obama.
Hawaii statute (HRS 338-14.3) says that the DOH SHALL (mandatory, no discretion allowed) verify to anybody who qualifies the fact that they have a certificate on file AND any fact about the vital even that the requestor provides to be verified - with the stipulation that when the DOH verifies something it is certifying that the event happened as described by the requestor.
HI statute (HRS 338-17) says that the probative value of late and altered birth certificates is determined by a judicial or administrative person or body when the certificate is presented as evidence. IOW, the State of Hawaii considers the claims on late and altered certificates to be hearsay at best. The claims are NOT considered to be legally true.
So when you put all that together what it means is this: the only legal reason for Onaka to refuse to verify the facts that a qualified requestor asks to be verified is if those facts are not claimed on a legally valid record. The DOH cannot simply ignore some facts that a qualified requestor asks to be verified.
Onaka refused to verify any of the above-mentioned birth facts for Obama. He verified that the claims on Obama’s posted BC are the same claims as are in their birth record for him, so it’s not that Bennett’s guesses didn’t match the birth record. The only reason left for Onaka to refuse to verify those facts is because the record they have (which claims those things) is itself NON-VALID.
IOW, what Ken Bennett actually received from Alvin Onaka was an indirect confirmation that the birth record they have for Obama is not legally valid.
As I mentioned, the things that make a record non-valid are a late filing or major amendments. Those things have to be noted on a BC, and THAT is why Obama had to forge both his COLB and long-form even though the claims on a genuine copy of them would be the same as what his forgeries claimed. He had to get rid of the notes of the amendments.
If the hand-written codes on the forgery are the actual notations from the record they have for Obama, Zullo’s info from today is proof that the original record had no info in two of the fields - but the record the HDOH has now DOES have info in those fields, so the record HAS been amended.
When you look at the kind of amendments that require the BC to be marked as “ALTERED”, though, simply adding the father’s race would not be enough to do that. There had to be something larger than that, in addition to those items we know were changed (unless even the base document for the forgery was somebody other than Obama’s).
This just became the lead headline on Drudge!
Here is the link to watch the first 37 minutes of the press conference:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/sheriff-joe-arpaio-press-conference/
severely.......NO
The pixel and pica people notwithstanding, the bald truth here is what he got from Hawaii is NOT what he released to the public.
Spare me the photoshop jargon. We all know it's a fake because what he got ain't what he gave out. He made the handout himself.
On to the draft card and the SS#. BTW, This identity problem is very old news. It's what got him off the Illinois Bar. He actually had the brass to deny ever having used an alias! That's right. He denied the whole "Soetoro" thing. Which if he has an Hawaiian Birth Certificate at all, is the name that in all likelihood would be on it. Because when a kid is adopted, original records (if any) are sealed and new ones issued with the adopted name.
Of course just to keep it interesting, he also denied drug use and having any traffic tickets. This Mombasa MF is quite a piece of work. Hope Sheriff Joe's Posse is the real deal
FINALLY it’s up on Drudge!
I’ve been waiting all day!
It was advertised as a BLOCKBUSTER disclosure but the presentation was low key and all the news bimbos and bozos just piled on asking ,”whats the big deal?”.
It's now obvious that the reporters had absolutely no idea what was actually being presented to them and what the significance of the information was since they were neither lawyers or law enforcement personnel.
Up until now there has been no solid, legally admissible evidence regarding Obama’s birth certificate and, given the fact that all of this happened 50 years ago and everyone involved was presumably dead, I figured there never would be.
Sure, you could have tons of experts analyze the Adobe layers in the BC and proclaim it a forgery but no one is going to go after a sitting President based on that kind of evidence.
Consider what has happened.
The Arizona SoS forces the State of Hawaii to go on record and formally take legal ownership of the forged Birth Certificate on the pretext of needing the information to put Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
After a lot of hemming and hawing, Hawaii finally certifies, in writing by an authorized responsible public official, that the document came from them and represents Obama’s official BC.
In one of the most bizarre statements I have seen from a public official, the AZ SoS states that he has received an email from the State of Hawaii certifying the authenticity and validity of the BC and it's fine with him despite the fact that he has not actually bothered to read the email.
Immediately after this, Arpaio sends his team to Hawaii to interview VK Lee, the 95 year old woman who not only is was in charge of filling out birth certificates in Hawaii at the time, but was in fact THE ACTUAL PERSON WHO FILLED OUT AND SIGNED the purported Obama BC.
As such she is THE direct, official witness to this event and not only is she alive - she is fully in control of her mental faculties.
Arpaio’s team obviously interviewed her and took a recorded, formal legal affidavit from her as a first person witness to the events which admissible in criminal court.
In it the have formal sworn testimony documenting from the first party direct witness who filled out the document in question that
a) the procedures and policies used at the time of Obama’s birth in detail for the record for background and context, which also documents the ladies recall and mental state.
b) they documented the significance of the penciled in number 9 as unknown in fields showing that the information was unknown and left blank
c) the have the DIRECT, SWORN TESTIMONY by the actual lady that filled out and signed the original BC document 50 years ago that she left those fields blank except for the number 9 when she meticulously filled out the paper work, as was the policy at the time.
d) they have her sworn testimony that there is no way the information added to the fields came from her or any other legitimate source in Hawaii at the time and the words now present in those fields were never any part of the format of any official Hawaiian document of the day.
e) they have her sworn testimony that she did not and could not have made a mistake at the time because the documents would never have passed official review at the time, and that she was very careful and “did not make mistakes” on official documents.
f) based on the above she has identified the document, officially certified by the state of Hawaii and signed by herself, as being altered and forged.
I am stunned that they were able to obtain this level of evidence, which is none other than the duly appointed, official government records keeper who actually filled out and signed that exact birth certificate 50 some years ago officially provide sworn testimony that it is a fraudulent and forged or altered.
It simply does not get any better than that from a criminal prosecution stand point and it also validates all of the evidence of forgery documented by the experts
in the Adobe .pdf Birth Certificate published by the Obama Administration
This really is a big effen’ deal and breaks the case open if anyone can be found to pursue it.
all that is excellent but you missed the M E A T of the presser
Looking forward to your post.
Thank you for your work!
What was it, because I sure did miss it?
if you listened to every word or will later ax this........what LEGAL clout does the state of Hawaii have NOW ?
now let the legal pundits run with dat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROFLMAO!!! Thanks for the laugh, 'mama!
Leg? that was a foot with a steel toed boot on it!
What makes you think that Alex Okrent was the forger? Did he specialize in desktop publishing?
Sadly old Joe has spun his wheels but is nowhere. We need to win the election based on Obama’s record. After we win then we can go back and get the fact.
When you get it written please ping me.......Spunky
I don’t think they’ve got an affidavit from her but they do have a recording of her saying those things.
There’s more, too. Even beyond the national security implications of Hawaii circumventing the process for people born outside the country to get a record of US citizenship - which Hawaii has been doing for a long time now - this is proof of even more recent, and deliberate, fraud on the part of the HDOH itself regarding Obama’s BC.
This is proof that the HDOH altered the BC# of Stig Waidelich in order to cover up Obama’s BC# discrepancy. Stig’s mother said to a CNN reporter that he was born at Kapiolani. The birth announcement said he was born on Aug 5th, the same day as the Nordykes. His BC# is 282 after the Nordykes’. According to the procedures described by Verna Lee, there would have had to be 282 babies born at tiny Kapiolani Hospital on Aug 5th, in order for Waidelich’s BC# to be what it was on the COLB that the HDOH gave to Waidelich while CNN cameras rolled.
IOW, that whole CNN “report” (right before Obama released his forged long-form) was a staged way for the HDOH to get a fake BC# for Stig Waidelich out into the public. There is no way that was accidental - and this should blow the lid totally off of any pretenses that CNN is an actual news organization.
This is collusion by the HDOH to alter official records and present it to the public via a CNN “report”. All to cover up the fact that Obama’s BC# is problematic. And this proves what I’ve been saying also - that Hawaii has been altering official records to cover for Obama. They also altered their 1960-64 birth index and at least at one point they had somebody else’s name using the BC# for Virginia Sunahara.
All of the rules and regulations Hawaii has used to block any disclosure of records of Obama’s history are all civil in nature and you cannot use civil procedures and state privacy Statutes to cover up criminal behavior.
A criminal complaint brings this to a whole different level
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.