Amendment Confirmation for Dummies

HDOH Confirmation of Obama’s BC Amendment For Dummies

AKA The Summary for People too Smart to Get Bogged Down in Details. =)

An even shorter version is here

This is the more understandable summary of how we know that the Hawaii Department of Health indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate was amended in 2006 and is thus not legally valid:

After a lot of hassle, sorting out, and back-and-forth between her and attorneys at Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices (OIP), requester (Terri K) requested from the Hawaii Department of Health copies of the receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate. The OIP attorney twice told Terri K that she could ask for those records but there might not be any if Obama didn’t amend his birth certificate, in which case the Department of Health should tell her so. The first step an agency is required to do when answering these requests for records is to see whether they HAVE the requested records. If they don’t have them, they say so right away and the processing of the request ends there. The HI law governing disclosures (Uniform Information Practices Act, or UIPA) only applies to records that exist, so if the records don’t exist, there is no reason to sort out whether UIPA allows disclosure.

If they have the requested records, they then go on to decide whether they can be disclosed. If they can disclose them, they do. If they can’t disclose them they say they can’t disclose them and cite the reason they can’t. If they are required to keep it a secret whether the records even exist (a very rare situation such as for firearms permit applications, criminal records, rape victim records, etc), they say that the records, IF ANY, cannot be disclosed (a “Glomarized” response which hides whether a record even exists). If an agency gives a non-Glomarized denial of access to requested records it is an admission that those records exist.

On sept 3, 2009 the HDOH responded to Terri’s request by saying they could not disclose “any related information” because she did not have a direct and tangible interest, as Hawaii law requires in order for the disclosure to be made:

“…Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information…”

 

Terri K didn’t understand that response or whether it was correct. So she appealed to the OIP for a ruling on whether that was a correct response. The OIP attorney replied that

“…It appears the Department of Health (“DOH”) denied your request by referring to a provision of the Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”) and a statute addressing vital statistics records… The DOH’s interpretation of the UIPA and section 338-18, H.R.S are correct…”

 

So access to the records had been denied, which is an admission that they exist. There were receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate.

Later on Terri reminded the Department of Health of all the things she had specifically asked for and asked them to clarify (as required by law) which of her requested records they had specifically denied access to. The DOH told her:

“Your request was denied in its entirety…”

So the Department of Health acknowledged that on Sept 3, 2009 they had denied access to all of the records Terri had asked for, which is an admission that they all existed – including invoices and receipts from Obama amending his birth certificate.

Later on, I sent a request identical to the “invoices and receipts” portion of Terri’s request. On January 5, 2010 the DOH responded,

“There are no records responsive to your request.”

That told me two things:

  1. First, it told me that the existence or non-existence of those records WAS discloseable, confirming in yet another way that their response to Terri could not have been a Glomarized response but was in fact a denial of records that were acknowledged to exist.

     

  2. Second, it told me that the receipts and invoices that still existed on Sept 3, 2009 were destroyed by Jan 5, 2010. Receipts and invoices have a 3-year retention period, so that 3-year time period ran out and the records were destroyed sometime between 9-3-09 and 1-5-10. That means that they came into existence sometime between 9-3-06 and 1-5-07.

     

So through all these official communications the DOH indirectly but officially/legally confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate sometime in the final quarter of 2006 – which was precisely when he was considering a run for the presidency.

HRS 338-17 says that an amended birth certificate is not self-authenticating as evidence:

§338-17  Late or altered certificate as evidence.  The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

 

And the standard COLB form has in capital letters “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”.

In other words, since Obama’s birth certificate is amended it is not legally valid and has no automatic evidentiary value. The State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of the claims on that birth certificate.

The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that they have no LEGALLY VALID birth certificate for Obama. And none of the announcements by now-former-DOH Director, Chiyome Fukino, ever claimed that the records she saw were LEGALLY VALID.

Advertisements

19 Comments

  1. Posted March 4, 2011 at 5:32 am | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent summary….fits my brain capacity…thanks for your time and energy that we will all benefit from!

    • Posted March 4, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I tried reading my own summaries while I was tired and realized I need to make this a lot easier to understand. It’s a wonder that anybody has been able to make sense out of any of it. I’m so thankful for PATIENT people. lol

  2. Posted April 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion, thank you for your meticulous attention to detail and accuracy in reporting. I am concerned that you appear to credit employees of the Hawaii DOH, the Social Security Administration, the Selective Service System, Medical Records at Kapi’olani and Queens, and others, with the same degree of accuracy and attention to detail which you demand of yourself. It resembles the futility of a literal inerrantist attempting to discuss the scriptures with a Wonderlander who claims “the Bible means whatever I think it means to me.”

    Running cover for the naked Emperor are bureaucrats who value their careers more than their integrity, and who willingly sacrifice the truth to “get along.” You cannot demand accuracy or debate points of law with such pragmatists. They have no moorings in absolute truth, and they may say nearly anything to convince 50.1% of the likely voters that nothing is rotten in Denmark.

    But the stench is overwhelming.

    BTW, it was my understanding that the Certification of Live Birth presented at DailyKOS on June 12, 2008, was a Jess Henig-Joe Miller production, not an actual document presented by Mr. Obama. He has not needed to risk getting dirty with that kind of deception, because his minions have taken care of the details – details like the murder of Quarles Harris – without Mr. Obama ever having to know about the dirty work behind the scenes.

    • Posted April 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Anybody can screw up. Right now I’m in the process of figuring out something I screwed up. Honest mistakes will happen, and that’s why we are supposed to have transparency – so that mistakes can be seen and corrected. If what we’ve seen were simply honest mistakes I could live with that. And we’ve tried to make every provision possible to allow honest mistakes to be corrected. That’s why Miss Tickly/Terri K and others of us have asked for so many clarifications. We’ve given them every chance in the world to know that what they said has serious implications and asked them to clarify.

      Their response has been to say that they don’t have to answer questions and to pass a law aimed at getting us to stop requesting clarification. And their response has been to get rid of their e-mail address that the public was able to use to contact them. And their response has been to ignore requests for records that must be disclosed – including the HDOH Administrative Rules that were illegally hid instead of being constantly posted online as required by HI law.

      Every step along the way has been characterized by obfuscation, lawlessness, and reduction in transparency. We’ve been more than open about what we want to know, and more than open in asking if they said what we thought they just said.

      This goes way beyond mere incompetence or laziness. Law-breaking is involved. They’ve been made aware that we know law-breaking is involved. They don’t care. The Ombudsman doesn’t care. The OIP doesn’t care. It is a systemic lawlessness.

      And you’re absolutely right: it stinks to high Heaven.

      Innocent incompetence can be dealt with, because it is easily detected and corrected – which I will have to do, tongue-in-cheek, as soon as I dig through some new information that’s become available, although my basic point is still valid. I made a mistake. Because I posted my documentation somebody else quickly noticed my error. They corrected me, I checked it out, and then corrected the mistake. Now that new information has come available I realize that the mistake I made is very important and changes one aspect of the story. So now the real source of the problem I identified is pinpointed more accurately.

      That whole system was able to work for identifying an error and getting to the real truth BECAUSE I was transparent. I cited my sources, and somebody else was able to quickly see my mistake. So now I’m dealing with it, having to dig much, much deeper than I thought I needed to.

      What we’re dealing with here is not that. This involves the violation of almost every law known to man, all to cover things up so the truth CANNOT be determined and errors corrected. That is the behavior of those who deliberately lie and want to keep the lie unexposed.

      And that is the major point I care about, and the major thing that stinks to most Americans who care about this issue. Our government is breaking laws and lying to us in order to cover up something they know is a problem. They ridicule us for caring. And then they want us to trust them with our deepest health secrets and medical care. They’re crazy. Absolutely crazy. And we’re absolutely crazy if we buy the crap they’re selling.

      From your comment, I know you understand that. I guess I just needed to rant today. Sorry about that.

  3. Posted April 12, 2011 at 8:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    Very informative and puts it all in perspective! Thanks for breaking it down for a “dummy” like myself. Keep up the good work.

    Cheers

    P.S. – Did you notice that the MSNBC article concerning the Dr. Fukino interview mentioned that Obama was very “testy” when asked to sign a birth certificate release form during the campaign? Of course, it never occurs to anyone over at MSNBC to wonder why their messiah was so testy about his Birth Certificate…

    • Posted April 12, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The “dummies” part is very tongue-in-cheek. This stuff is confusing, especially when I go into long, detailed refutations of every possible protest. Without that, it’s much easier to understand, and that’s what I wanted people to be able to see.

      Obama supposedly got his COLB printed on June 6, 2007. That was when McCain’s eligibility was being contested. Obama’s eligibility wasn’t brought up until March of 2008. So if Obama was testy a week or two before June 6, 2007 it wasn’t because he was being challenged; it was because he knew he had to get things in order because he WOULD be challenged. IOW, the “testiness” wasn’t a response to challenges. It was from something else, and I know of no reason an honest person should be testy over simply signing a form for routine documentation.

      And no, the media will never bother to ask any reasonable questions. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. People can see that, and that is why this issue is growing in spite of all the disinformation and ridiculing by the clowns who are supposed to be keeping us voters accurately informed. That is why 87% of those polled said they thought Trump was right in asking Obama to release his long-form.

      The bad thing is that I’m almost positive they have a forged long-form in the HDOH office, using the BC# of somebody else. There is evidence suggesting this is what they were preparing to do, and Abercrombie and the AG’s behavior in December suggested that they intended to publicly unveil a forged long-form. What stopped them, IMHO, was probably 2 things: talk of state eligibility bills requiring the transaction logs and complete vital records history that would reveal forgeries and/or tampering, and the HDOH Director, Neal Palafox balked at falsifying the BC#’s – an act for which both Abercrombie and the AG then retaliated by ousting Palafox under the guise of a “rumor” about Palafox being investigated for Medicare fraud. Okubo at the HDOH and Abercrombie’s office both lied publicly, claiming that Palafox had not been asked to resign, and the AG’s office refused to confirm that there was no investigation of Palafox’s billing – in essence allowing an innocent man to be falsely accused without simply telling the truth to vindicate him.

      Tells everybody that blatant lying for the sake of a political agenda is as routine as breathing to these critters. Which is why – as I and a lot of others have been saying – a legal investigation of the BUREAUCRATS is warranted. Why are they lying and breaking laws at every turn?

      • Posted April 12, 2011 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

        Aren’t the records also kept on microfiche in Hawaii just like about every other state?

        It’s pretty darn hard to alter a microfiche record without creating a noticeable splice in the strip… And, microfiche strips are normally duplicated multiple times and stored at several different locations.

        I just Googled around and found Genealogy databases confirming that Hawaii uses microfiche to back up Birth Certificates:

        http://www.hspls.org/hp/Bibliographies/GenealogySources.pdf

        So, I’d keep my eye on the microfiche…

        Of course, the microfiche strips could “suddenly” get destroyed in a fire or something (as happened in St. Louis in 1973 with all those military records)… Brrrrrr! I shudder at the thought!

        Anyway, gotta’ get crackin’ on some stuff for Mrs. Bulldog. I’ll catch ya’ later.

        Cheers

      • Posted April 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        Good point. Something to remember is that the microfilms are all in the custody of a government that has broken multiple laws to cover for Obama. And there is good evidence that library microfilms have been altered, even though they were supposed to be publicly available at the time. So the microfilms could be checked for tampering, but especially since the original documents are still available for re-filming, a microfilm could be made that wouldn’t show a splice. And once one microfilm is made it would be easy to change out all the duplicates.

        One thing I can tell you: I got a lot better response from the State Archives when I was asking about the birth index than when I tried asking whether the actual birth certificate microfilms are stored at the State Archives. They’re required to be stored at more than one place. The security microfilms for vital records are stored at the State Records Center. They are under the custody of the HDOH, so the same people who are lying to us about everything under the sun and breaking every law in the books (OK, that may be a slight exaggeration. lol) are the ones who alone have access to the microfilms. If they re-microfilm the records in question on aged master microfilm and then make a copy of the microfilm and place it in the HDOH office, an actual forensic analysis would not be able to prove what was done.

        Seems to me that Neal Palafox must have balked at something Abercrombie and the AG wanted him to do. He showed integrity by not covering up the fact that Abercrombie asked him to resign. Makes me wonder if he had too much integrity to allow this kind of tampering.

  4. Posted July 20, 2011 at 1:19 am | Permalink | Reply

    Do you have any relevant theory to backup your opinion written on this article?

    • Posted July 20, 2011 at 3:45 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure what you mean by “relevant theory”. What I’ve given is analysis based on what HI government attorneys have said in direct communications on this case and in formal OIP Opinion Letters about similar cases. If you look at some of the other links/articles about this issue here on this blog, there is very detailed documentation of those sources. I think I counted one time and had 15 different instances where various legal sources affirmed the fact that a non-Glomarized denial of access is an admission that the requested record exists. This post is just the simplest presentation of the facts.

      • Scott the Strategerist
        Posted September 23, 2012 at 8:02 am | Permalink

        You’re brilliant, truly, but you’re casting pearls before swines when you respond to Obots. I’m sure you could immediately tell, as I could, that this was a condescending Obot. There are both condescending Obots, who try to sound reasonable and poly-syllabic, and the more common variety who use nothing but insult and derision, but both varieties of cockroach, uh, I mean, Obot!, exist. May I offer you a can of Raid? 🙂

      • Posted September 27, 2012 at 6:57 am | Permalink

        The smell is immediately recognizeable. Often a combination of the two varieties.

  5. Tommy Thompson
    Posted July 21, 2011 at 6:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    that sort of reminds me of the statement by Kenyan officials….Obama’s birth records are locked up and marked “top secret” in Mombassa but he wasn’t born here.

    • HistorianDude
      Posted January 22, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It reminds me of the same thing but for different reasons.

      No Kenyan official has ever said, “Obama’s birth records are locked up and marked “top secret” in Mombassa but he wasn’t born here.”

      And no Hawaiian official has ever said (even indirectly) that President Obama’s birth record has ever been amended.

      • minutemancdcsc
        Posted May 29, 2012 at 4:12 am | Permalink

        It is not necessary for any Hawaiian official to say Barack Obama II’s birth record has been amended. It obviously had to have been amended when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in 1965 or early 1966, after Lolo married Stanley Ann in March, 1965. Barack II’s name was changed to Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah).

        Then again, Barrack Hussain Obama, Sr., officially reaffirmed his fatherhood in Honolulu on or around Dec. 23, 1971, and immediately rendered Barack II over to Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who raised him until he left home to attend Occidental College in 1979. If Barack II’s birth record was somehow not amended when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, it would most assuredly have been amended when he was adopted by his mother’s parents in Honolulu.

        Barrack Sr. might have rendered Barack II over to his mother, if that would have been necessary or significant before the law. But Stanley Ann Dunham did not have custody of Barack II, and within a year or two, she returned to Indonesia without her son.

        As for your statement, “No Kenyan official has ever said, ‘Obama’s birth records are locked up and marked “top secret” in Mombassa but he wasn’t born here,'” I sincerely hope to cause you no offense. But were you in Mombasa in 2008, when Dr. Jerome Corsi was prevented from entering the Coast Province General Hospital by Kenyan police, who told him just that? On Oct. 7, 2008, minutes before he was to have a press conference in Nairobi to announce the findings of his investigation, the Kenyan immigration authorities grabbed him and held him incommunicado until the time for his flight. Then they deported him and told him, “Don’t ever come back!”

        Your word against Dr. Corsi’s, HistorianDude, and only one of you was there as an eye-witness. Since you have already been shown to be “mistaken” about the amendment of Barack II’s birth records accompanying his adoption in Indonesia, probably, and his adoption in Honolulu, certainly, most reasonable people will accept Dr. Corsi’s eye-witness testimony about his detention in Mombasa over your statement made upon your own cognizance.

        http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/25/constitution/obama-eligibility-kenya-question/

        http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/303053/

      • Posted May 29, 2012 at 4:25 am | Permalink

        After an adoption a BC isn’t actually amended but it is replaced by a supplemental BC. If the adoption is set aside then the original is put back in the files as the legally-valid BC. So neither the original nor the supplemental BC has any note of amendments or is marked in any way to indicate that the BC is not legally valid.

        If the HDOH was being truthful in their responses, the amendment they are trying to cover was made in late 2006.

        I really ought to read Corsi’s book, because he’s said that his book documents that the Bush Administration found from the Kenyan government that Obama’s Kenyan records had been destroyed. I wonder what he has for documentation of that.

    • Tallison Rausch
      Posted May 28, 2012 at 1:42 am | Permalink | Reply

      And why do you so readily believe foreign officials over American ones?

  6. minutemancdcsc
    Posted May 29, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink | Reply

    @Tallison Rausch, your question makes a straw man assumption of the “When did you stop beating your wife?” variety, and it has a ring of insincerity, as if you are asking a trick question. But to treat your question with unwarranted dignity…

    I don’t know whom you are addressing as “you”, but for the purpose of discussion, I will assume “butterdezillion”, unless you clarify to whom you directed your question. Speaking for a “you” made up of readers in general, concerning Mr. Obama, we believe American officials at least as much as foreign officials… EXCEPT for threats, coercion, witness and judge tampering, and on the other hand, benefits from Obama rule.

    Foreign officials are generally less vulnerable to pressure from the Obama regime than American officials, who have been shown to cave time after time – except for Army Maj. Stefan Cook (dec’d.), Army Lt. Col. Dr. Terry Lakin, Marine Sgt. Gary Stein, CNN commentator Lou Dobbs, and others who have willingly paid the price of dissent from a totalitarian oligarchy, which is part of the cost of freedom.

    “For freedom Christ has set us free;
    stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” – Galatians 5:1 (ESV)

  7. Tallison Rausch
    Posted July 26, 2012 at 6:30 am | Permalink | Reply

    Take #2, this time with typos corrected & some paragraph breaks:

    What straw man do I insinuate? You acknowledge regarding foreign officials as more reliable on this subject than American ones. Well, what about the vast majority of foreign officials & dignitaries recognize Obama as the United States of America’s duly eligible, elected & rightful Commander in Chief? Why are they any less credible than a handful of foreign dissenters?

    In any case, championing the credibility of foreign officials over that of American sworn civil servants frankly strikes me as un-American. This issue’s gotten to the point where those still questioning Obama’s eligibility strike me the real usurpers of American law & order. Every democratically elected representative & appointed official of the 49th State of Hawaii with the authority to speak on Her behalf has attested to the existence, content and validity of the State’s Department of Health archival records indicating that Barack Obama was born there in 1961. The Founders generated the concept of Full Faith & Credit to prevent the exact kind of seditionist second-guessing and speculation going on here. And yes, the spirit of it requires Faith…in your America & your fellow Countrymen, both liberal & conservative alike.

    This is not Good vs. Evil. We’re all Americans here, and all want the best for this country, just with different visions of what that looks like. In fact, our visions have much more in common than not! With dialogue we can find a compromise. That’s what our democratic process is designed to yield every time….compromise, not one extreme or the other. And for all its flaws, ours is still the best process on earth. My wish is that you eventually see how having lost faith in your fellow Countrymen poses a much greater threat to this Great Nation than the Presidency of Barak Obama.

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: