No Letter of Verification for HDP or DNC

HDOH Indirectly Confirms Neither HDP nor DNC Received Letter of Verification

 

Poster “Citizen Concerned” has posted in the comments this exchange he/she had, wherein the HDOH confirmed they have no records of financial transactions with the Hawaii Democratic Party or the Democratic National Committee. Those financial records are required to be retained for at least 3 years (6 if not already audited). Since a letter of verification requires a financial transaction, this exchange effectively rules out the possibility that the HDP or DNC received a letter of verification for the facts of Obama’s birth between Feb 4, 2007 and Feb 4, 2010.

 

Obama declared his candidacy on Feb 10th, so at no time since Obama declared his candidacy did the HDP or DNC receive a letter of verification regarding the facts of Obama’s birth on which they could have based their certificate of nomination swearing his Constitutional eligibility in Hawaii or the fact that he was the “DULY CHOSEN” candidate for the DNC for other state’s certificates (which requires the candidate to be Constitutionally eligible as per the DNC Rules , p 14, K.1 and 2. Thanks to blogger jbjd for that link!)

 

So neither of the two avenues for the HDP or DNC to receive legal confirmation of Obama’s birth facts from the HDOH were used – a UIPA request for a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate, or a letter of verification.

 

Special thanks to “Citizen Concerned” for an outstanding piece of investigative work, and for sharing it with the rest of us.

 

Request:

 

From:
To: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
Subject: UIPA Request Financial Transactions Involving DPH and DNC
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:40:40 -0800

Ms. Okubo,
 
Pursuant to HRS 92F-12, I hereby request to inspect and copy the following records the DoH is required to maintain per the SoH General Records Schedule that identify the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Party of Hawaii and/or their respective authorized representative as a payer between the dates of February 4, 2007 – February 4, 2010.

3.A.3 OSHM or equivalent Cash receipts (payer, amount, date)
3.A.4 OSHM or equivalent Sales journal (payer, amount, date)
3.A.5 OSHM or equivalent Accounts Receivable journal (payer, amount, date) 3.D.6 OHSM or equivalent Journal voucher and supporting documents (payer, amount, date)
3.D.7 OHSM or equivalent Universal input form (payer, amount, date)
3.D.8 OSHM or equivalent Agency internal journal entry and supporting documents (payer, amount, date)

If the record contains information that cannot be disclosed per HRS 92F-13, please redact the confidential information.

Regards,

 

Response:

 

Subject: RE: UIPA Request Financial Transactions Involving DPH and DNC
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:47:35 -1000
From: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
To:
CC: hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov

Aloha,
 
State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or data incidental to those records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record.  We are therefore unable to provide any documents that are responsive to your request for information relating to persons who ordered copies of vital records.  In terms of records of payments from the DPH and DNC, there are no records responsive to your request.
 
Janice Okubo
Hawaii State Department of Health

Advertisements

60 Comments

  1. Granite
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Did the Republican Party of any state obtain confirmation that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone as he claimed?

    Did they obtain confirmation that George Bush was born in Connecticut as he claimed?

    What state parties obtained confirmations that Clinton was born where he claimed or Reagan or Ford or Nixon or Eisenhower or FDR?

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 7:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I have no idea.

      Now I have some questions for you.

      Did they sign certifications when those people had no legally-valid birth certificate in the United States?

      Did they sign certifications without looking at documentation when a prominent member of their own party was in the middle of a lawsuit against them questioning the qualifications of the candidate?

      Did they sign certifications after the candidate refused to supply any genuine documents for ANY of his personal background?

      Did they sign certifications after the candidate actually supplied what was determined by document experts to be a forgery (which was later confirmed as a forgery by the DOH in the state the BC claimed to be from)?

      Did they sign certifications after the passport records of the candidate had been sanitized, with the VP candidate knowing exactly how, why, and by whom it was sanitized?

      • Posted March 21, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        Actually, Barack Obama led the charge (with Hillary Clinton) to determine if John McCain was a qualified U.S. Citizen. It was found that McCain was, in fact, a U.S. Citizen and the proof had to be presented to the Senate. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1403, was passed a year after McCain was born retroactively conferred citizenship to any “Zonie” (Panama Canal Zone) born after 1904. Additionally, in 2008 U.S. District Court Judge Alsup ruled McCain a natural born citizen by virtue of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1401.

      • Posted March 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        Who had standing to get a ruling on the merits by Judge Alsup? I’m not sure that retroactive laws work, Constitutionally speaking.

        The Senate action on McCain was a non-binding resolution so it was basically an unsolicited opinion that had no legal impact. But McCain did present his birth certificate, although I don’t know if anybody saw a genuine copy with the validating raised seal.

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 7:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      And I forgot one more:

      Did they sign certifications when the party officials from the state where the candidate was allegedly born – possibly at the counsel of the person who handled the candidate’s parents’ divorce – refused to certify eligibility?

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 8:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Berg filed his lawsuit on Aug 21, 2008 – a week before Pelosi signed the certification. See http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bergobamanoteligible21aug08.shtml

      In view of that lawsuit Obama could well have requested an expedited release of the birth certificate for Pelosi to look at. How could they have known that the judges would say Berg didn’t have standing to sue the DNC? And that’s not just a rhetorical question either. They very much behaved as if they knew the judges would all throw it out. Why? Why could they be so sure of that, that they didn’t even TRY to cover their collective backsides?

    • Aussie
      Posted September 23, 2010 at 9:07 am | Permalink | Reply

      From what I understand McCain provided his birth certificate.

      • Posted September 23, 2010 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        That’s my understanding as well. I thought somebody had made accusations that what he provided was a forgery but I don’t know whether there’s anything to that or not. I don’t know whether he submitted paper documents to Congress, but if he did they would be able to get it verified by the agency that issued it.

  2. Granite
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 8:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Re: “Did they sign certifications without looking at documentation when a prominent member of their own party was in the middle of a lawsuit against them questioning the qualifications of the candidate?”

    Answer: What do lawsuits have to do with the matter? It is legally possible to sue a person for any reason or for NO reason. The fact that there is a lawsuit does not mean that there are facts behind the lawsuit. It has been discovered that suing has become a political weapon.

    Re: “Did they sign certifications after the candidate refused to supply any genuine documents for ANY of his personal background?”

    Answer: In the past they did not even ask candidates to provide their birth documents. If, however, you are saying that Obaam did not provide a genuine document, that is wrong. He did. He posted and showed to both Politifact and FactCheck his Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people every year, and the facts on the birth certificate were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii and most recently by the governor of Hawaii.

    Re: “Did they sign certifications after the candidate actually supplied what was determined by document experts to be a forgery (which was later confirmed as a forgery by the DOH in the state the BC claimed to be from)?”

    Answer: Neither the DOH nor any official has determined that the birth certificate is a forgery. Only two guys who would not give their real names CLAIMED that the birth certificate was forged. No official did, either in Hawaii or in the federal government. The McCain campaign looked into the allegation of forgery, and found that it was false. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed the FACTS on the document, and it is the facts that are key.

    Re: “Did they sign certifications after the passport records of the candidate had been sanitized, with the VP candidate knowing exactly how, why, and by whom it was sanitized?”

    Answer: There are no reports that Obama’s or anyone of the persons whose files were accessed were “sanitized” or changed in any way. The file were accessed. The information was read. But there were no reports that anything was changed or that they COULD be changed. Those were computer files that were accessed, and the State Department has both them and the originals, and it doe not allow the people who look at the computer files to change or alter them. The access was done during the Bush Administration, so if there were any changes or “sanitizations” to the files, they would have told us.

    Re: “Did they sign certifications when the party officials from the state where the candidate was allegedly born – possibly at the counsel of the person who handled the candidate’s parents’ divorce – refused to certify eligibility?”

    Answer: Who was it that refused to certify eligiblity? Not the DOH, of course; it does not certify eligibility. It certifies birth in Hawaii, which it did. It is highly likely that there are some states where there are no laws that say that someone must certify eligiblity. In that case, the officials always refuse to certify eligibility.

    Re: “In view of that lawsuit Obama could well have requested an expedited release of the birth certificate for Pelosi to look at. “

    Answer: Since no previous president or candidate had shown his birth certificate, why should Obama have done so? In point of fact, Obama did show his birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, but he did not have to show it to Pelosi, and she did not have to ask to see it. She may have seen the one that was online and accepted the words of FactCheck and Politifact, but she may simply have accepted Obama’s word, which is what had happened with ALL the previous presidents.

    Re: “How could they have known that the judges would say Berg didn’t have standing to sue the DNC? “

    Answer: This has nothing to do with the historical fact that parties certify the eligibility of presidential candidates without demanding proof from them.

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 9:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m sorry, Granite, but the things you’re saying are all proven inaccurate by the other postings here on my blog. I suggest that you go to the start page at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com and read what’s in the links that I have at the top of that page – links to the main posts on the various subjects.

      For instance, the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. If you read the link about that you can see the documentation for that.

      They’ve also made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended, which means that it is not legally valid, according to HRS 338-17.

      There are just so many glaring inaccuracies in your comments that it would be a waste of time for me to address them until you’ve read what I’ve actually documented. Sorry. I’ll post what you say but I’m not going to engage until the content actually matches reality in any way.

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      My point is that if there is no reason to believe there is a documentation problem it’s a little more understandable if they don’t look at the documentation, and I do believe that the birth certificates for those people are in presidential libraries, so their belief that those presidents were eligible has been validated.

      But when there is concrete evidence of forgery and a lawsuit staring you in the face, it’s a bad time to play “chicken” with America’s future. I don’t appreciate Russian Roulette played on my kids, and if Pelosi or any of the others think that my kids’ future is a joke that they can play Russian roulette with then they should be in a psych ward as soon as they get done with their life sentences for the crimes they’ve committed (such as perjury, forgery, concealment, etc) – as I’ve documented on this blog.

      The DNC claims that it trusts the state parties to vet a candidate’s eligibility. The Hawaii democrats refused to certify eligibility, so why didn’t Pelosi take them at their word? Why did she not trust their judgment? Why didn’t she at least take the time to find out? You say anybody can file a lawsuit. But the very people that the DNC says they look to for an answer as to whether to certify is the state party – and they TOTALLY IGNORED the flashing red lights put out by the Hawaii Democratic Party.

      I believe they had a reason they ignored all this stuff. They knew that no judge was going to take up the issue, because they had Soros threatening the collapse of the free economy if they bucked his coup.

  3. Granite
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 8:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Re: “Did they sign certifications when those people had no legally-valid birth certificate in the United States?”

    Answer: Obama has shown the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and hence legally-valid.

    The Wall Street Journal said: “The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues.”

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 9:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Once again, it is clear that you’ve not read any of my claims. I am not arguing about whether a COLB is a legal document. I’m showing, based on the HDOH’s own statements, that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and that the real COLB has a 2006 certificate number and note of an amendment made in 2006 which renders the whole thing legally invalid, according to HRS 338-17.

      Please familiarize yourself with the actual claims I am making and the basis for those claims and then we can talk.

    • Aussie
      Posted September 23, 2010 at 9:09 am | Permalink | Reply

      the COLB posted on the Internet is a forgery. You will have to do better than that.

  4. Granite
    Posted September 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    YOUR claims are total crap. For example, if an original birth document were amended, the COLB would have to say on it “amended,” and it doesn’t.

    IF DOH or anyone in Hawaii had found that Obama’s birth certificate were forged, there would have been legal action taken. It is only you that claim that DOH found that the document was forged. If it did, it would not have gone to the lengths to show that the facts on the document are accurate, and it did–and so did the head of the department of vital records and the governor.

    Re 2006, I believe you are referring to 2007, when Obama got the COLB. There is no amendment on the original or on the COLB because if there were, the COLB would have to say. Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have verified that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    And, there is no proof (except for the obviously forged “Kenyan birth certificate”) that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

    • Posted September 16, 2010 at 10:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Granite, please read what I’ve written before you embarrass yourself any further.

      The HDOH confirmed that the BC is amended. The fact that the COLB doesn’t note the amendment is one way we know that the Factcheck COLB is not genuine.

      I have statements from both the OIP Director and from Okubo herself saying that they would NOT have even reported a known forgery. Okubo said the law prohibits her from revealing ANYTHING on a BC in response to my question of whether she would have reported Factcheck as a forgery if she had known it was a forgery.

      I am referring to 2006, when Obama made the amendment to his BC, which according to the best evidence I have, appears to be an amendment to actually COMPLETE the BC, so he didn’t even HAVE a BC from Hawaii until then.

      It’s obvious that you haven’t even read what I’ve written. We are wasting our time if you won’t even read what I’ve said, much less the documentation I give for it.

  5. Granite
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 3:23 am | Permalink | Reply

    Re: “The HDOH confirmed that the BC is amended.”

    Total Crap. They never issued a press release that said “the BC is amended.”

    NEVER.

    You are saying that you interpret their reaction as saying that it is amended. But it is your interpretation, and it is wrong, and you have neither proof nor confirmation.

    If they had said “It is amended,” there would have been a public statement “it is amended.” According to Hawaii law, if there is an amendment, it must say “amended” on the COLB.

    Now the officials in Hawaii–that is four of them, the original clerk, the heads of the DOH and department of vital records, said only that Obama was born in Hawaii. IF THERE WERE AN AMENDMENT, which there wasn’t, it could not have affected the clear fact that the original birth certificate says that he was born in Hawaii, which is what they said.

    You assert that they all are lying? Well, then, what good would it do unless Obama was born outside of the USA? And there is NO proof that he was born outside the USA, and the Kenya story is CRAZY.

    • Posted September 17, 2010 at 3:47 am | Permalink | Reply

      I never said they issued a press release. All over this blog I’ve said that they made a statutory admission in official responses to UIPA requests that Obama’s BC is amended. I showed the documents.

      If you’re going to pick and choose what form the confirmation needs to be in, you can ignore a lot of true information, but that epistemology is basically one where you shape the facts according to what you want them to be.

      Fukino’s July 27, 2009 announcement said only one thing about herself personally. She verified that she had seen the vital records. That’s all she testified of herself. She never verified anything or made any statement about where Obama actually WAS born; she only cited what the vital record CLAIMS. She said that the vital records verify (which legally means that it was sworn) that Obama was born in Hawaii.

      But because those vital records are amended there is nobody in the world at this point who can make that BC have any legal value unless and until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. That’s what HRS 338-17 says.

      What does the BC being amended have to do with that BC saying Obama’s birthplace was Hawaii? Your argument doesn’t make sense to me. Also, when you say, “IF THERE WERE AN AMENDMENT, which there wasn’t, it could not have affected the clear fact that the original birth certificate says that he was born in Hawaii, which is what they said”, that is all mixed up. First off, they never said that his original birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. Fukino made one statement saying she had seen his original birth certificate and then later she said she had seen his “vital records” which swear that he was born in Hawaii. By saying records (plural) she basically admitted that there was more than just an original birth certificate.

      Also, when they amend a BC they draw a single line through the item that is being changed on the original BC, write in what it is changed to, and then write a note of when the amendment was made and on the basis of what documentation. The documentation is kept in a separate file, which is why somebody who only has a birth record at the HDOH (as is the case for Obama) would still have vital records (plural) – because there is the original BC and then there is the supplementary evidence to support the amendment.

      Based on what the HDOH has revealed in UIPA responses I don’t believe he amended his birthplace. I believe he added his birth weight to complete the BC, and the reason that is so damaging for him is because if he had been in Hawaii at birth, anytime within the first 30 days after birth he could have had a Hawaii doctor examine him and complete the BC. Then this whole mess would not have happened. He wouldn’t have a late, amended BC that was only completed when he was 45 years old – which is not legally valid.

      I base my conclusions and/or theories on what the HDOH has said in their responses and what I’ve been able to see on documents. The evidence is the only reliable way I have of determining anything.

    • ksdb
      Posted September 17, 2010 at 2:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Technically, they did release a statement that confirmed Obama’s alleged COLB is inaccurate and either forged or doctored. In July 2009, Chiyome Fukino said she saw original vital records that supposably verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. The problem is that a genuine COLB, which is prima facie evidence in a court of law, would be sufficient BY ITSELF to verify the place of birth. IOW, there’s no need nor reason to look at or look for any other vital records if Obama’s alleged COLB was legitimate. And Fukino had no problem specifying an original birth certificate by itself in an October 2008 statement. Her deliberate change of terminology reveals that Obama’s alleged COLB is not genuine or accurate.

      • Posted September 17, 2010 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

        Yes, exactly. And I’m thinking it may be very significant that OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama used HRS 338-13 as his citation applying to “Terri K’s” request for all of Obama’s BC’s on file as well as documents submitted to support the claims on the BC’s – rather than the HRS 338-18 usually cited by the HDOH (I need to check and see if that was what they cited for Terri K’s specific request which she appealed to Tsukiyama).

        The difference between HRS 338-13 and HRS 338-18 is that 338-13 says disclosures also have to be in accord with HRS 338-16 and HRS 338-17 – the two sections dealing with late and amended birth certificates. So Tsukiyama, in addressing whether Obama’s BC’s and accompanying documentation had to be released, specifically (and I believe in contradiction with the HDOH’s responses) included the parts of the law which govern late and amended BC’s.

  6. Granite
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Re: “they made a statutory admission in official responses to UIPA requests that Obama’s BC is amended. I showed the documents.”

    Total crap. What you are saying is that according to your interpretation, they said it. But you have no confirmation, and your interpretation is worthless.

    What they have said, all four of them (the clerk, the two officials in the DOH and the governor) and the witness and the Kenyan grandmother was that he was BORN IN HAWAII.

    You must believe that they all are lying. But the first official confirmation was before the election, so they are not doing it to be nice to the sitting president.

    It occurred to me that maybe two percent of Americans even had passports in 1961, and the number of pregnant women who had passports and used them while pregnant may have been one one hundredth of that. There is absolutely no proof that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and Obama indicated in his first book that she had applied for one in 1965, when they were about to go to Indonesia, meaning that she probably did not have one in 1961.

    There is absolutely no proof that Obama was born anywhere than Hawaii. The officials and the witness and the grandmother all say Hawaii. He was born in Hawaii.

    • Posted September 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Keep talking. Maybe somebody will believe you.

      The passport situation is another issue. There will be more on that. The Passport Office has been sitting on a request for the index records for passports issued to Ann. Those are on alphabetized index cards and are microfilmed, required to be kept permanently…. it’s got to be the easiest search request that office has ever received, and yet they have stalled for a year. They could tell us today whether Ann had any passports before 1965. They won’t. Why do you think that is?

  7. cynkading
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 3:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Good morning Butter,
    The questions that needs to be asked to the above poster is Why hire lawyers and spend close to 2 million in lawyer fees (our tax dollars) to fight not producing his birth certificate???? Why sign an executive order to seal all his records???If there is nothing to hide why hide anything???That is just about as simple as it gets. Just my 2 cents.

    • Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You underrate yourself. That’s clearly worth more than 2 cents – it’s worth every dime Obama has poured of our tax money into flipping off the entire country including our military who put their lives on the line every day in pledge of their sacred honor and the vows they have made.

      I think the perfect way to describe Obama’s attitude toward those heroes, who deserve everything we can give in support, is….. flippant. He flips them off every chance he gets.

      They deserve much, much better than that. There are more ways to despise a human life than just murdering it, and this guy is a master at belittling and ridiculing the dignity and sacred honor of men and women much, much greater than he can even comprehend.

    • ksdb
      Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Just to clarify, nobody knows for sure how much money has been spent fighting eligibility lawsuits. The bad thing is that some of the money used is most likely coming from taxpayers, most of whom are, and who can prove they are, natural born citizens.

      The second point is that the executive order applies to presidential records, not personal records. Obama can’t legally sign an order that seals his birth records in Hawaii. Presidential records are generally sealed under executive privilege, which is legitimate, except that it doesn’t jibe with Obama’s pledges of change and transparency. Previous presidents have sealed their records, not just Obama.

      • Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for the clarification. Maybe somebody should do a FOIA request asking for the lawyers’ bills for the court cases.

        I can only imagine how long that one would take, since a simple look at about 5 alphabetized index cards is taking the Passport Office a year.

  8. Granite
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Re: “Why hire lawyers and spend close to 2 million in lawyer fees (our tax dollars) to fight not producing his birth certificate???? ”

    Because none of the lawsuits were for the birth certificate. This is another myth spread by the professional birthers. The overwhelming amount of money spent on lawsuits was fighting lawsuits that tried to stop the election, stop the Electoral College from voting, stop the congress from certifying the election (which it did unanimously) or stop the Inauguration. The remaining lawsuits asked that the court declare that Obama was not eligible to be president, not to see the birth certificate. Or, they asked for a lot of documents including the birth certificate but also such things as college records and Kindergarten records, which they have no right to see.

    Obama has already shown the official birth certificate. If there were a lawsuit just for the birth certificate, he would show what he has already shown and the court would accept it because it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people every year. Hawaii does not now and did not in 1961 allow a birth certificate to be issued that indicated birth in Hawaii unless there was proof of birth in Hawaii. Obama’s shows that he was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials and the governor have repeatedly confirmed.

    As for the State Department not making a statement about Obama’s mother not having a passport. Why should they? The fact that they have not said anything does not mean that she either had or did not have a passport in 1961. It is extremely unlikely that she did have a passport, and Obama has indicated that she probably did not. If she did, it is CRAZY to think that she used it to go to Kenya (which was a VERY expensive trip at the time) while she was pregnant (Yellow Fever in Kenya) with the dangers of miscarriage. But unless she actually traveled while she was late in pregnancy, the story does not work out. But in those days US airlines often did not allow women on the plane when they were late in pregnancy, due to the dangers of miscarriage.

    Re the “executive order to seal his records.” That is another myth. It applies ONLY to federal presidential records, not to state or college records, and it actually made it harder for a president or former president to seal his presidential records.

    Obama’s birth certificate, college and other records are not sealed. They are simply private, as private as your records or my records or the records of other presidents and presidential candidates.

    • Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Obama showed a forgery, as indirectly (and directly, as ksdb mentioned) confirmed by the HDOH. You need to absorb what that means. The certificate number and “date filed” are incompatible. There is no note of the amendment. Fukino had to refer to multiple records in order to say there was a sworn claim of a Hawaii birth. OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama cited the laws regarding late and amended birth certificates to explain how Obama’s birth certificate and acccompanying documentation have to be legally treated. The evidence is overwhelming to those who are willing to see it.

      And second, the Passport Office should release the index records because FOIA requires it and somebody has been waiting a year for them to do that simple disclosure in obedience to the law.

      Which is the same reason that Fukino should disclose a non-certified abbreviated BC for Obama as the rules and laws require. And a host of other things the law requires but she is refusing to do.

      See, my gripe in all this has never primarily been about Obama, but about the lawlessness and corruption that allowed this whole mess to happen. Apparently that doesn’t bother you?

      • ksdb
        Posted September 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

        Should Obama choose to run for re-election in 2012, no doubt his campaign slogan will be “Forging Ahead.”

      • Posted September 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

        ROFL. You’re cracking me up. That’s great!

  9. SapphireSunday
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Another great and devastating article, butterdezillion. The comments are worth the price of admission.

    Granite: You lose all semblance of credibility when you say, “Obama has shown the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and hence legally-valid” and “if an original birth document were amended, the COLB would have to say on it ‘amended,’ and it doesn’t.”

    First of all, Obama has NEVER shown ANY “Certification of Live Birth” OR ANY “official birth certificate of Hawaii”.

    He himself has SHOWN nothing. Not ANY 3-dimensional, stamped and certified paper document that is capable of being authenticated in a court of law, despite the many court cases where he could simply produce the documents and be done with it.

    While it’s true that his campaign staff and supporters have placed an unprovenanced digital image of something that purports to BE a certified abstract of an original birth certificate, it’s a DIGITAL IMAGE. As such, it CANNOT BE “legally valid.”

    Second, since that digital image posted on partisan BLOGS and CAMPAIGN websites, has no legal status, it’s useless for you to make claims about what it does or does not say.

    You haven’t a clue what those HDOH “vital records” say. They are not the same as a digital image on a blog. If they were presented to a court of law, they could be examined and possibly authenticated; but Obama will not instruct his lawyers to have the vital records presented to the judges in any of the cases. Why not? Especially since you seem so convinced that he was born in Hawaii, when and where he says, and to the people he claims as parents, supposedly proving that he is eligible to be president. What’s the problem with showing the vital records? They WILL prove that what he claims is true. Won’t they?

    Since the digital image is worthless, it doesn’t matter whether it says “amended” or not. Let me put it another way: If that digital image is legally valid, then so are any of the various Kenyan birth certificate DIGITAL IMAGES that are floating around on the Web.

    FULL DISCLOSURE. Release the vital records.

    • Posted September 17, 2010 at 4:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Given the price of admission is zero, I’ll take that as a…. er… compliment. lol. Thanks. On behalf of all the excellent commenters here – yourself included. =)

  10. SapphireSunday
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Ha, HA! butterdezillion, it WAS a compliment. It’s a figure of speech, but in this case the price of admission is very high–intellectual honesty. As good as gold in the age of Obama.

  11. tdr
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    you’ve picked up an obot. must have gotten nowhere somewhere else. you’ll have to deal with him for awhile. they always fail. the harder they try, the more people suspect that this issue is worth following. remember what rush says, they always tell you what they fear.

  12. cynkading
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 6:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Btw, Obama could not decide which hospital he was born at Kapiolani Medical or Queens. If you google which hospital was Obama born at you will find that there are no records proving his birth at any hospitals in Hawaii. 🙂

    He also admitted to having dual citizenship and that does not jive with the requirements for the office of president according to the Constitution.

  13. cynkading
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 6:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Granite, what say you???

  14. cynkading
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 6:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Who does not know which hospital that they were born at??? Just look at your birth certificate if you have one and are in doubt……..snap!!!

  15. Citizen Concerned
    Posted September 17, 2010 at 9:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Butter,

    Don’t waste another sentence on Granite. You have better things to do i.e. fighting the good fight.

    He/she is obviously psychotic and needs to see a therapist or a doctor to obtain some meds to get over their frustration with birthers and the logical arguments presented. The Obots are so deperate to be right because their Messiah is falling from grace right before their eyes.

  16. Granite
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 4:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You said: “Obama showed a forgery, as indirectly (and directly, as ksdb mentioned) confirmed by the HDOH. “

    Answer: Obama’s birth certificate is not a forgery, and no government agency or department or former member of government has ever said that it was forged. The McCain campaign looked into the allegations of forgery and found them false. IF a government agency had ever said the birth certificate were forged, there would have been an investigation. Hawaii is under a Republican administration. They have no reason not to investigate an alleged forgery.

    Instead, they said repeatedly that the original documents in the file verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is four government officials, the original clerk, the heads of the departments of health and vital records and the governor.

    You said: “The certificate number and “date filed” are incompatible. “

    Answer: The number on the Certification of Live Birth has no relationship to the number on the original birth certificate.

    You said: “There is no note of the amendment. “

    Answer: That is because there is NO amendment.

    You said: Fukino had to refer to multiple records in order to say there was a sworn claim of a Hawaii birth.“

    Answer: She said clearly that the documents in the file VERIFY that Obama was born in Hawaii. A simple sworn statement by relatives would not do that. Both the governor and the witness (http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece) have said that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, as did Obama and his sister (she always said Kapiolani, though she was misquoted once by UPI).

    Re: “And second, the Passport Office should release the index records because FOIA requires it and somebody has been waiting a year for them to do that simple disclosure in obedience to the law.”

    Answer: FOIA apparently requires if for Obama’s mother. Not perhaps for him. The difference is that he is alive while she is dead. In any case, the Strunk FOIA request DID NOT ASK for her passport records but only for APPLICATIONS FOR PASSPORTS. An anti-birther FOIA request is underway asking for her passport records.

    Re: “Which is the same reason that Fukino should disclose a non-certified abbreviated BC for Obama as the rules and laws require. “

    Answer: There are different rules for FOIA, which refers to federal records, and the state equivalent when they deal with private records. The state equivalent of the FOIA makes it clear that it does not require the disclosure of private records.

    Re: “the lawlessness and corruption that allowed this whole mess to happen. “

    Answer: You are referring to a Republican administration in Hawaii. The solution would be to encourage voters to vote in their opponents.

    Re: “Apparently that doesn’t bother you?”

    Answer: During the last Presidential administration, some $200 billion in federal contracts were let without competitive bidding in a single year. Of course this bothers me.

    However, you have not said “Obama was born in Hawaii but the Republican government of Hawaii did not follow the rules.” If you had said that, I would have ignored this blog.

    By posting your claims that the rules were broken you are implying that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii. That, of course, is wrong on two fronts. First, there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else than Hawaii (and the Kenya theory is madness) and second there is legal evidence which has been repeatedly confirmed that he was born in Hawaii.

    • Posted September 20, 2010 at 8:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve already dealt with all the stuff you mentioned, except your claim that “The number on the Certification of Live Birth has no relationship to the number on the original birth certificate.”

      That’s a bold, unsupported whopper, and just to show you how actual substantiation is done, I’ll show you one person’s documents. Notice that the COLB Cert# is the same as the Long-Form Cert#.

      https://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/long-form-and-colb-cert-numbers-are-the-same.pdf

      The rest of what you said is just as documentably wrong but I’m not going to waste time presenting the documentation here since I’ve already done that elsewhere.

    • Aussie
      Posted September 23, 2010 at 10:18 am | Permalink | Reply

      Granite you are full of it. Hawaii does not have a Republic Government. The Government in Hawaii is run by the Demoncrats. Only the Governor is Republican….

  17. Granite
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Re; ‘Obama could not decide which hospital he was born at Kapiolani Medical or Queens. If you google which hospital was Obama born at you will find that there are no records proving his birth at any hospitals in Hawaii. ‘

    Both Obama and his sister have always said Kapiolani. One news agency, UPI, misquoted her in one article, but she always said Kapiolani. Short form birth certificates do not show the name of the hospital, and most states now are using short form birth certificates.

    • Posted September 20, 2010 at 8:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      There are lots of places where the pages that Google has removed (funny how that happens, eh?) are archived. Obama was first listed as being born at Queens before they settled on Kapiolani. The fact that he had to pay to amend his BC makes it clear that he was not born in a Hawaii hospital at all.

  18. Granite
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Re: “First of all, Obama has NEVER shown ANY “Certification of Live Birth” OR ANY “official birth certificate of Hawaii”.

    And: “He himself has SHOWN nothing. Not ANY 3-dimensional, stamped and certified paper document that is capable of being authenticated in a court of law, despite the many court cases where he could simply produce the documents and be done with it.”

    Answer: Actually, he did both. He posted the document on his campaign site, and he showed the physical copy of it to both FactCheck and Politifact. FactCheck has an excellent, detailed photographic image of the document up on its site, and it shows the special paper and the raised images quite clearly.)

    Re; “While it’s true that his campaign staff and supporters have placed an unprovenanced digital image of something that purports to BE a certified abstract of an original birth certificate, it’s a DIGITAL IMAGE. As such, it CANNOT BE “legally valid.”

    Answer: It is far more proof of birth in the USA than any other president has provided. No president before Obama ever showed his birth certificate.

    And, it is the facts on the birth certificate that matter, and the officials in Hawaii have confirmed them repeatedly.

    Re: “Second, since that digital image posted on partisan BLOGS and CAMPAIGN websites, has no legal status, it’s useless for you to make claims about what it does or does not say.”

    Answer: It is the combination of the statement on the published document and the confirmations that show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Moreover, you will find that virtually all birther lawsuits did not ask for Obama’s birth certificate to be shown to the court. Most birther cases do not want to find out this fact; they want to give the impression that Obama is refusing to deliver his birth certificate. That is why they do not ask for it. In other cases, they ask for the BC but also ask for college records and kindergarten records, which Obama does not have to show and which would be bad precedent for other presidents.

    Re: “You haven’t a clue what those HDOH “vital records” say.

    Answer: Unless the four government officials in Hawaii, the clerk the heads of DOH and vital records and the governor, are all lying, the vital records say that Obama was born in Hawaii. And that, by the way, is what the witness says (http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece0 and what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said (she never said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, and in another interview she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of the birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.)

    Re: “What’s the problem with showing the vital records? “

    Answer: Obama has shown his vital records, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. The so-called “birther bill,” the legislation that some Republicans have sponsored calling for candidates for president to prove their place of birth, calls for the OFFICIAL birth certificate, not for the original birth certificate.

    • Posted September 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The vital records do CLAIM that he was born in Hawaii, but because those vital records have been amended what they say has no legal weight. That’s why neither Fukino nor any official who has actually seen the documents can THEMSELVES VERIFY anything on those vital records – because the State of Hawaii has made no legal determination of Obama’s birth facts. Look at Fukino’s statement and you will find that SHE does not verify anything. As representative of the State of Hawaii, HRS 338-17 does not allow her to say what Obama’s birth facts are unless and until a legal determination is made regarding the amended BC’s probative value.

  19. Granite
    Posted September 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I stand corrected on the COLB numbering. I made an assumption that the system had changed.

    Where did you show that the original number of Obama’s birth certificate was different from the number on the COLB?

    Re; Obama was first listed by Google that it was in Queens before they removed. He said in his book that he was born in Kapiolani. That was Dreams from My Father.

    Re: “The fact that he had to pay to amend his BC makes it clear that he was not born in a Hawaii hospital at all.”

    This is all made up. You have no proof that Obama had his certificate amended.

    • Posted September 20, 2010 at 8:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

      There’s a lot there. You should read it. It has info and documentation about both the BC# and how we know that Obama was not born in a hospital. This is why I say you should read what I’ve written and THEN try to dialog. It’s just a waste of time for me to have to repeat what I was careful to document elsewhere.

      I didn’t say that Obama was first listed by Google as being born in Queens. I said that there are references to a Queens birth which have since been removed by Google.

    • Aussie
      Posted September 23, 2010 at 10:21 am | Permalink | Reply

      why do you rely on a fairy story? That book that was written by a ghost writer is more fiction than fact.

  20. Posted September 21, 2010 at 9:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    no official letter, but maybe phone-calls,emails

    • Posted September 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

      HRS 338-18a says that disclosures of what is contained on vital records are only to be made through the release of actual documents. A person can’t just call them up and ask them what’s on a birth certificate. Or at least they’re not supposed to be able to. And the whole point of having the actual documents, complete with the marks of authenticity, is so that there is proof of what is claimed. To this day the HDOH has not been willing to show the proof of anything they’ve said, even though Hawaii law requires them to do so once they’ve made public statements claiming certain facts.

      • Posted September 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

        unless Obama allows it. Obama told his story and
        DNC just checked whether it’s credible

      • Posted September 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

        Obama isn’t supposed to be able to undo HRS 338-18a. He can give consent for his records to be disclosed, but to do that he would give the requesting person authorization and they would request the records. There is a proper procedure for the disclosure of information; it is to be done through records disclosure, using the proper protocols.

  21. Posted September 22, 2010 at 4:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    > Obama isn’t supposed to be able to undo HRS 338-18a.

    isn’t supposed to be able. Are these HRS mandatory or
    only to regulate the bureaucracy ?
    I assume the 338 is made to protect
    the interest of the born person.
    When everyone agrees, then no interests are
    violated.

    > He can give consent for his records to be disclosed,

    for his records to be just checked and his birth confirmed ?

    > but to do that he would give the requesting person authorization
    > and they would request the records.

    why should he do that, when a telefone call is so much easier

    > There is a proper procedure for the disclosure of information;
    > it is to be done through records disclosure, using the proper protocols.

    by what law ? Didn’t they violate it later anyway by those 2 Fukino
    statements on the HDOH webpage ?

    • Posted September 22, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      HRS (Hawaii Revised Statute) is the law of Hawaii. If the person agrees to allow their document to be disclosed then the document is to be disclosed. The only authorization for the release of information from a birth certificate without actually releasing a copy of the BC itself is through index data or a letter of verification. Fukino has said that index data consists of name, type of event, and gender. So it seems to me that she is not claiming authority to release Obama’s place of birth by saying it is index data. It’s not a letter of verification.

      Someone I respect a lot has argued that Fukino has discretion to disclose pretty much anything from a BC by calling it “index data”. But it seems to me that Fukino is not saying Obama’s birthplace is index data that she can disclose at her discretion, because of the constant definitions of “index data” as “name, type of event, and gender”.

      The way to check whether they have records for somebody is by index data – which Fukino’s office initially denied that they can even disclose. She initially said that they couldn’t disclose the BC or ANYTHING RELATED TO THE BC. They only began to release index data after Leo Donofrio caught them deceiving the public about their ability to confirm whether there is a birth record in their office.

      Fukino’s first statement was lawful; it just basically gave the index data, saying that they have a birth record for Obama. Her second statement is only lawful if place of birth is considered index data, which seems to be contradicted by HDOH statements that “index data consists of name, type of vital event, and gender”.

      So they say they’ve got birth index data for Obama. But he wasn’t in their 1960-64 birth index in March. He’s in the birth index they show the public when they ask for the 1960-64 birth index now, but when you look at the page you have no way of knowing that it’s the 1960-64 birth index because there is nothing on the page which CLAIMS it is – unlike all the other index books in that ofice. And the name directly above Obama’s name is “Obado, Duplicate Mae” – even though there is no other Mae Obado listed that would be a duplicate. The place where “Mae Obado” would be has…. Obama II, Barack Hussein.

      And the HDOH says they cannot disclose what index a person’s name is listed in. Their “For Office Use” portion refers to several different indices that are supposed to be checked: Hawaiian Birth Certificate, delayed birth certificate, no records, pending… So they could have “index data” for Obama that comes from the “pending” index, or the “delayed birth certificate” index – and they say they cannot do anything that would reveal that the index data they have is for a legally-deficient BC.

      The original, hand-written birth index existed in 1980 and was required to be retained permanently, but the HDOH says they don’t have it. The Index to Foreign Births existed in 1981 and was required to be retained permanently but the HDOH says that don’t have it either. If they don’t have an Index to Foreign Births, then exactly what file contains the record of foreign births registered in Hawaii? The standard birth index? By the time the law was passed allowing registrations of foreign births the HDOH was already using a computerized system, so when I asked for the Index to Foreign Births I knew I was asking for an electronic record. If the HDOH has no electronic records showing whose birth was registered as a foreign birth, then what did they do with those registrations? Did they toss them into the standard birth index?

      They won’t answer those questions. And they appear to be arguing that they can’t reveal whether the birth record they have is actually a foreign birth, delayed BC, Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (another form of delayed BC), or pending. None of those records would be legally valid to prove a Hawaii birth and yet – if the HDOH’s own claims are believed – the HDOH will give birth index data for all those instances without indicating in any way that the birth was not in Hawaii or the record is legally deficient.

      Why do things through written means rather than by phone? Because written documents have authenticating marks – the seal, date stamp, and registrar’s signature. They can be presented to others as legal proof.

      Your question brings up another interesting point though. Janice Okubo told Mark Niesse that all index data requests are really about Obama because nobody requests index data unless it’s about Obama. The HDOH changed their procedures for getting index data, so it would all have to be done via snail mail. IOW, they made it so that they will have a real name and real address for anybody who requests records that they say are ALL about Obama.

      Have they treated Obama’s records differently? If index data is all about Obama, then yes, they have – because they have required that a mailing address be given for anybody requesting index data.

      • Posted September 22, 2010 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

        You know something else I just realized? I have looked at quite a few index records, and I have yet to see anybody listed with a II behind their name, like Obama II, Barack Hussein. Every name that I’ve seen has Jr rather than II. The only time I see any number behind the last name is if it is a III or IV.

  22. Posted September 22, 2010 at 4:39 am | Permalink | Reply

    Obama himself may have requested from HDOH such an examination
    and confirmation signed by Fukino and confirmed by notary, which
    then he showed to Pelosi and Germond.
    And later allowed to be made public. (Oct.31,2008)
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

    he didn’t want to disclose his BC so he searched for another
    method to proof his birth in Hawaii.

    • Posted September 22, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If Obama’s BC is amended, as the HDOH confirmed statutorily, then they couldn’t print out a letter of verification for him at all, because they don’t have anything legally valid for him.

      So there is nobody on earth who could have gotten a letter of verification for him.

      That’s why this admission of an amendment is so critical. Those who think the HDOH didn’t actually confirm an amendment should at least acknowledge that the issue should be investigated, because if Obama’s BC is amended, then Hawaii has nothing legally valid and anything they have said or done to imply otherwise is basically the legal equivalent of perjury. And anything that Pelosi or anybody else signed saying they had checked the legal qualifications is also certifiable perjury.

      Why nobody with legal authority to do so has requested an immediate and thorough legal investigation is perplexing, since it certainly appears that the HDOH has confirmed the amendment and if they did it would expose the whole bureaucracy as corrupt.

      But maybe that’s precisely why nobody within that bureaucracy will allow an investigation. They know what would be found.

  23. Posted September 27, 2010 at 3:37 am | Permalink | Reply

    THESE ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS- BASED UPON THE NATIVITY STORY TOLD:
    B.OBAMA II WAS BORN A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM & COLONIES
    B.OBAMA II WAS BORN OWING ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY
    B.OBAMA II WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. GOV’T AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
    B.OBAMA II HAS ADMITTED THAT HIS CITIZENSHIP STATUS WAS/IS ‘GOVERNED BY’ THE LAWS OF A FOREIGN STATE.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: