Birth Index List Does Not Indicate Legally Valid Record

Birth Index Includes Nonvalid Records _Documentation Included_

Here’s the documentation that what the HDOH presents to the public as the 1960-64 birth index includes legally non-valid names. The appearance of a name on that list says nothing about the VALIDITY of the person’s record.

Advertisements

9 Comments

  1. Posted September 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    As Fl ss. 102.168(1) (3) (b) shows, Florida electors have the right to challenge the eligibility of “ANY PERSON” whom is “NOMINATED OR ELECTED” to office.

    Even if no primary is held, the unopposed candidate shall be considered “NOMINATED” for the office.

    “101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.”

    Further, Federal Election statute (11 C.F.R. 100.2(C)(5)) says that the election is “considered to have occurred” if there is an unopposed major party candidate whom shall appear on the general election ballot. So Florida statutes agreee with Federal statutes.

    Therefore by Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b) I have standing, and the Supreme Court of Fla. has said that “eleigibility is a judicial determination upon any challenge properly made” (Shevin v. Stone(1972))

    My action is properly made as to time, indispensible parties, claimant status, and venue. Therefore this action is properly made, and the court is obliged to make a ruling as to the eligibility of Barack H. Obama

    Appeal Brief filed yesterday.

  2. Posted September 26, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    My Goodness, you are a ding-a-ling. The 1964 Birth Index is an accurate record of births in 1964. If something happens AFTER 1964, such as an adoption, it does NOT undo the 1964 birth.

    Use your head. If you are married for 10 years, then get a divorce and ask for your maiden name back and move to a new address, they don’t change your name, address, and phone number in all the phone books for the years you were married. YET, those phone books are still an accurate representation of your name and phone number for the years you were married.

    Same with this stuff. True, the 1961 birth index does not prove that Obama wasn’t adopted in 1971, for example, but it does show that he was born in 1961 in Hawaii as Barack Hussein Obama II. If Obama had been adopted in 1971, the 1961 Birth Index would still be a VALID record for the year of 1961.

    The three separate Verifications show the information that was entered in 1961 on the Certificate of Live Birth matches the information on the White House Image.

    Please GROW UP and quit making up a bunch of stupid and squirrelly nonsense so that you don’t have to face REALITY.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Posted September 27, 2012 at 1:21 am | Permalink | Reply

      Squeeky, please read the statute I cited. When an adoption takes place a new birth certificate is created which replaces the original in the file. The original is sealed; neither it nor its existence is to be disclosed to the public except if ordered by a court. Totally different than a marriage, and if you had read the statute you would know that.

      The 1960-64 birth index that I’m talking about is a computer printout. Hawaii takes part in the EVVE system, which includes a “void flag”, which is a field that toggles from valid to void to show what the legal status of the record is. When an adoption takes place the original record is voided and a new BC using the same BC# takes its place. If the adoption is set aside the adoptive record is voided and the original record is set to the valid setting.

      If the 1960-64 computer printout contained only legally valid records it would not include the Asing names, because the “void flag” would be activated to say that the records were not valid. To get the Asing names on there, they had to either print out all the void records as well as the valid ones, or else manually include those 2 void records – in which case they could have manually added ANYBODY’s name as well as Norman and Nathan.

      The HDOH is supposed to have a handwritten birth index, and it is supposed to be retained permanently. That index would have all the records from the time, as you suggest. I’ve asked to see that handwritten index for 1961 and was told it was illegally destroyed.

      Regarding the verifications, you don’t seem to be absorbing what either I or Larry Klayman have said. I suggest you read it again and if the content doesn’t make sense ask me questions so you can understand it. The key point is that Onaka is required to verify WHATEVER IS SUBMITTED TO HIM if he can verify that. He is not allowed to verify things that he has not been requested to verify. AZ SOS Bennett asked him to verify that the WH image is a “true and correct representation of the original record on file.” He did not verify that. IOW, he confirmed that it’s not.

      In the Kansas verification he was asked to verify that the information contained in the WH image “is identical to” the information contained in the original BC on file. He didn’t verify that. IOW, he confirmed that it’s not. And he indicated that “matches” DOESN’T mean “is identical to”, which tells us what he meant when he verified for MDEC that the information “matched”. (It doesn’t mean it’s identical; there could be stuff left off the WH image).

      But I’m just repeating myself, which is stupid. What part of what I’ve said don’t you understand? Or what do you disagree with, and why? If you want to talk, we can talk but you’re going to need to engage with what I’ve said and not just talk right past me as if I hadn’t already explained this.

  3. Posted September 27, 2012 at 3:17 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion:

    I may have to break my response down into several parts for length. First, there is more than one way to say something or answer a question. If I get asked if Matilda, my cat, is in for the night, I might answer YES, in several ways:

    1. Matilda came in at supper time.
    2. She’s laying on the couch.
    3. She’s already fast asleep.
    4. I let her in about 4:00 PM.

    Notice that none of those answers specifically says that Matilda, my cat, is in for the night, yet all convey that idea. You could NOT reasonably maintain that Matilda, the cat, is in fact outside at night simply because I did not say the following words:

    5. Yes, Matilda is in for the night.

    If you deconstruct the sentences, each of them could be deceptive:

    1. Matilda came in at supper time, but she went back out after eating.
    2. She’s laying on the couch on the front porch.
    3. She is already fast asleep in the flower bed.
    4. I let her in about 4:00 PM, and then she scooted back out when I took the trash out.
    5. Yes, Matilda is in for the night. She’s “in” the backyard.

    One can always play games with words, yet to ignore the plain meaning of words and sentences is simply paranoid thinking. When Onaka says the White House Image matches the records in the files, there is NO BASIS to take those words as meaning anything other than, the darn documents match each other.

    If Onaka was of a mind to lie and fib, there is no reason for him to play silly word games. He could simply lie and fib without engaging in any sophistic games.

    According to the statute, all Onaka must do is:

    a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

    (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

    There are no magic words he must utter. He is free to communicate in English. He need not by statue, recite each piece of information contained in the original files, nor must he answer in some prescribed legal formula. In each of the 3 verifications, Onaka has clearly stated that the information on the White House Image, “matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth.”

    If you do not believe that, and think he is lying, then that is your right. BUT, you can NOT logically twist his words to mean the opposite of what they say, that he is in fact confirming the White House Image is a phony. Nor can Klayman.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    (Next, I will do the legally valid records stuff.)

    • Posted September 27, 2012 at 4:02 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’m not accusing Onaka of lying. I believe he told the truth. And I’ve pointed out the difference between what he actually said and what you seem to be claiming is synonymous. What do you do when an entry is blank, if you’re “matching” entries? It’s very clear what is meant by “identical”. It’s very clear what is meant by “true and accurate representation”. Where are you getting the rules that define “matches”?

      When that verification was being typed up the typist was looking right at the request. The wording is word for word except for the things I noted. It took extra work to change those words. Why did they do that? Onaka’s job is not to be a poet. That is apparently your job. His job is to verify whatever he is given to verify. And when he verified Bennett’s list of items from the BC he did it exactly from the BC – right down to the exact format of the dates, with or without abbreviations, and with or without dashes or spaces. Verbatim.

      You are missing the whole substance of the argument I’ve given. Onaka did not verify Obama’s birth date, gender, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name. When you look at that verification where do you find the date that Obama was born? Where do you find his mother’s name? Etc. Onaka did not verify those things. There’s only one lawful reason for him not to verify those things.

      And I have documented all over this blog the responses from OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama, the HDOH, and Neil Abercrombie which indicate that the birth record is late and/or altered. Your whole argument seems to be that Onaka COULD HAVE MEANT “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” when he used other words and avoided directly saying what would be clearly understood to mean “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. But if that’s what he meant and it is his job to clearly verify only what is given to him to verify, why would he use different words so that people had to interpret what his intended meaning was?

      The officiant asks, “Do you, Olive Oyle, take Popeye to be your lawfully-wedded husband?”

      Olive Oyle responds, “I think he’s kinda cute.”

      Are they married? Is what she said synonymous with “Yes”?

      Depends on what the meaning of “is” is, I guess…

      Maybe you like cat and mouse, but cat and mouse is not Onaka’s job. His job is to be precise and clear, and he gave 3 consistent responses – responses which were clearly understood by the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee as well as every lawyer I have spoken to regarding this issue: Onaka verified that Obama’s BC is not legally valid. That’s why MDEC requested a verification that would work for a non-valid BC after they saw how Onaka had responded to Bennett’s official verification application (by not verifying anything off of it). And it’s why they were careful to tell the judge that “information” only means BIRTH FACTS (and thus doesn’t include file numbers, filing dates, evidence listed, or LATE and/or ALTERED stamps).

      If you want to say that “matches” is synonymous with “is identical to” then I ask you to cite your sources. Give me the legal definition for “is identical to”. And while you’re at it you can explain why 2 different web pages are really the same thing too.

      • Posted September 27, 2012 at 5:06 am | Permalink

        Butterdezillion:

        You said:

        You are missing the whole substance of the argument I’ve given. Onaka did not verify Obama’s birth date, gender, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name. When you look at that verification where do you find the date that Obama was born? Where do you find his mother’s name? Etc. Onaka did not verify those things. There’s only one lawful reason for him not to verify those things.

        HE DID VERIFY IT. You are too busy trying NOT to admit it to understand it. Here is the relevant law:

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

        (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

        By law, Onaka must:

        1. Provide a Verification of the existence of a certificate.

        2. And any other information that the applicant provides to be verified.

        IF Onaka issues a Verification, that certifies the event took place and the facts of the event ARE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT. If the applicant, as in Arizona, submitted a request, and a copy of the long form, then the mere act of getting the Verification certifies the FACTS OF THE EVENT ARE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT.

        Onaka does NOT have to list out in his answer in detail every piece of information the applicant sent in.

        There is nothing in that statute which governs the exact words that Onaka must use to accomplish that task.

        If you write to Onaka and ask:

        Please, Mr. Onaka, will you cross your heart and hope to die and swear on your Mother’s grave that Dr; Sinclair signed Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth like it says on this copy I’m attaching???

        Nothing in the statute requires him to answer:

        I Alvin Onaka, Ph.D., do hereby cross my heart and hope to die and swear on my Mother’s grave that Dr. Sinclair signed Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth like it says on the copy you attached.

        He could answer by saying:

        The information you requested verification on matches the information contained in the original document. That sounds darn precise to me.

        Plus, let’s take your example:

        The officiant asks, “Do you, Olive Oyle, take Popeye to be your lawfully-wedded husband?”

        Olive Oyle responds, “I think he’s kinda cute.”

        Are they married? Is what she said synonymous with “Yes”?

        No, I don’t think that is a “Yes.”, unless her conduct indicates it to the preacher. But here is a better way to frame it:

        Olive Oyle responds:

        I do.
        You betcha!
        Certainly.
        Oh hell yes!
        You better believe it!
        Do bears poop in the woods???
        Aye
        That would be a big 10-4!
        Affirmative!
        Of course.

        Are those terms synonymous with “yes”. You betcha! Now, as far as “matches”—Here is the Merriam Webster definition:

        1
        to be the exact counterpart of
        Synonyms correspond (to), equal, parallel
        Related Words blend (with), conform (to), coordinate (with), go (with), harmonize (with); complement, supplement; counterbalance, counterpoise; echo, image, mirror, repeat; add up (to), amount (to), approach, come (to), near; measure (up), partake (of), rival, suggest

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/match%5Bverb%5D

        and for Identical:

        Related Words akin, alike, analogous, comparable, coordinate, correspondent, corresponding, equivalent, like, look-alike, matching, parallel, similar, such, suchlike, synonymous, tantamount

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/identical

        Looks to me like identical and matches mean the same thing
        in this case.

        MORE IMPORTANTLY, matches sure doesn’t mean the OPPOSITE of Identical to.

        Three separate times Alvin Onaka has done told you:

        The information on the White House Image matches the information on the Original Birth certificate in our files.

        That sentence is in simple English and it ain’t hard to understand. The fact that you can read that, and come to the exact opposite conclusion ought to be your wake up call that something is wrong.

        I may tease you a lot, but in one sense I really am concerned about you and others who have fallen in with this silly Birther stuff. After hanging around with them, people seem to lose their sense of reason. Simple sentences become monstrous snares for the unwary, who have to weave their way through all the dangerous words. It’s like birthers are in some kind of cult, and have been brainwashed to not believe their own lying eyes.

        I am not an Obama supporter like the Obots. I am voting for Romney. But that doesn’t change the simple realities of life. Obama was born in Hawaii. He’s a natural born citizen. Birthers can sue a thousand times and the law isn’t going to change.

        Similarly, the Onaka verifications are exactly that. They are simple to read and understand. If you do not believe me, then print out some copies, and take them to some of your friends or family who are NOT Birthers. Ask them to read them. See what they think.

        Put Birthering aside for a week and stay away from them. Call it a vacation. Clear your mind, and get away from the fighting and arguing. Go pay a $100 to a non-Birther conservative Republican lawyer, and ask him to explain them to you. If it helps you save the next few years of your life, it is cheap at 50 times the price.

        The information on the long form matches the information on the original document in Hawaii’s files.

        Is that really that hard to understand???

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      • Posted September 27, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

        Show me where Alvin Onaka verified that Barack Huseein Obama II was born on Aug 4, 1961. If he didn’t say it he didn’t do it. Show me where he verified that Obama’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham. Those are the facts Bennett asked him to verify. Show me where he verified those birth facts. YOu say he could use whatever form he wanted to use to say that. So he could have said it in Roman numerals, could have said it in Spanish or German…. but show me where he said Obama was actually born on Aug 4, 1961.

        And then explain to me why MDEC was very careful to explain that “information” means BIRTH FACTS – not a blank (or filled-in) field for evidence filed. See, you can say that a blank field is “information” but MDEC was careful to tell the judge that it DIDN’T mean that. Why did they do that?

        What birth facts did Onaka verify to MDEC? What birth facts are mentioned specifically in that verification? Again, it can be in any language you want. He could say, “Obama got pooped out of his mother at the xxx longitude and yyy latitute (yo, dudes, that’s right here in sunny Honolulu, Hawaii!!” if he wanted to, but show me where he said that Obama was really and truly born in Honolulu, in the MDEC verification. If he didn’t say it he didn’t do it.

        Now suppose Onaka has a legally non-valid BC that is written on toilet paper in lipstick, saying, “I, Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu, HI to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama”, with a 2006 acceptance date, a note that it was amended to add a birth weight in 2006, and the words ALTERED and LATE stamped on it. He is asked to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu. None of it can be certified as the way the event really happened because the record is non-probative. But he has to verify that they have a birth certificate on file because they do.

        So what would Onaka say to verify the existence of a birth certificate (as required) without also certifying that the birth facts stated in the verification application are actually true?

        What if the person making the request left off only the father’s name, which is not a required field for a birth certificate? Would you say that the information they provided “matched” what was on the BC you’ve got, or would you say that the information didn’t match because there was ” ” in the field for the father’s name and the record you’ve got has “Barack Hussein Obama” listed as the father? If they leave a space blank is that a wrong piece of information and so you would write back and say, “I can’t issue a verification for Barack Hussein Obama II”? Some kid who doesn’t know who his father is can never get a verification because when he requests the verification he always puts empty space where the father’s name is – not knowing who his mom listed as the dad? Is that how it works? Or do they verify whatever they can verify that the person actually DOES submit information for?

        Now suppose that somebody asks you to verify that a BC image on regular security paper and lacking the LATE and ALTERED stamps is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. Can you verify that is true? Why or why not?

        Suppose they submit a copy of a birth certificate that has all the other information just like the record on file but it doesn’t have a father’s name listed. They ask you to verify that the information contained in that birth certificate matches the information contained in the original. What information, if any, was presented to you that doesn’t match?

        Spare me and my readers the psychoanalysis. The only people more delusional than those who believe in the tooth fairy are those who set up blogs to argue about the non-existence of the tooth fairy and then claim that they aren’t just as fixated on the issue as the people who DO believe in the tooth fairy. If my concern over this issue is psychotic then so is yours – except that my concern is for the rule of law and not just to try to make myself look smart by taking pot-shots at and psychoanalyzing “those poor delusional people who believe in the tooth fairy.” I had no idea of the existence of your blog but looked it up just to see if you are this genuine person you want people to believe you are, and what I found was a bully who trash-talks everybody without ever bothering to really hear what they are saying. That’s why you had no clue that I was saying Onaka was truthful, and assumed that the birth index information I presented was geared towards refuting an Obama adoption. You never gave the courtesy to try to even hear what I was saying, even though it appears from your blog that you’ve been following me all over the internet. You were only interested in trash-talking me so you could feel like you were the big girl today. You came onto my blog immediately calling me names and telling me to grow up. It’s rude, ugly, and sad.

        In the meantime, the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee understood Onaka’s verification to Ken Bennett the same way as did I, Larry Klayman, and a couple other lawyers whose arguments depended on my understanding being wrong. They showed that by requesting a verification that would work for a non-valid record and by carefully explaining to the judge that “information” does NOT mean Item 23, or LATE and ALTERED stamps… When Larry Klayman, Butterdezillion, and the lawyers for the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee all call the play the same way, I think it’s a pretty safe call. It’s like the ref, the replacement ref, the instant replay, and both opposing coaches agreeing on a call. lol

  4. Posted September 27, 2012 at 4:11 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion:

    I understand what you wrote about adoptions and birth certificates. The old, original birth certificate is replaced by a new one, with the new parent(s) names on it, and the old one is supposed to be deep-sixed somewhere for safe keeping.

    That process does NOT make the original birth certificate legally invalid. The information on it is still as accurate or inaccurate as it ever was FOR THAT TIME PERIOD. It has just been replaced by a new edition, usually for privacy purposes, or for identification purposes.

    It is very possible that a computer programming error is the reason why the current print outs of 1964 birth indexes shows the original information, or maybe the DOH just doesn’t care. The original information is NOT being hidden because it is invalid, but because it is VERY VALID. It shows the REAL TRUE information about the birth.

    The fear is that some adopted kid will come in, who knows he was born on July 4, 1964 in Hawaii, and ask to see the index and find out who his real parent(s) are.

    You have tried to use this fact to imply that Hawaii maintains a set of legally invalid records when in fact it does no such thing. The records are very valid for the 1964 time period. If you are trying to prove that the existence of a 1961 birth index entry for Obama does not mean that he wasn’t adopted at some later date, then you are working much too hard to do it.

    If Obama was adopted in 1971, then of course this would NOT be revealed by a 1961 record in the index. It happened 10 years later. I do not know if states go back and adjust their indexes when there is an adoption. My GUESS would be some do and some don’t. Some states may not even allow access to the indexes. Who knows?

    The point is, you can not rely on the fact that a 1964 birth is ACCURATELY reflected on a 1964 birth index to prove Hawaii maintains legally invalid records. If anything, they are maintaining them too good.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Posted September 27, 2012 at 4:38 am | Permalink | Reply

      I am not saying anything about Obama being adopted or not. I’m saying that the 1960-64 birth index – a computer printout of multiple years of records – contains names that do not legally exist, based on legal relationships that do not exist. Norman Asing is not the legal father of Norman or Nathan Roloos. Norman Asing is not the legal father of anybody named either Norman Asing or Nathan Asing. The birth certificates that made those legal claims are no longer legally valid. There may be BIOLOGICAL truth in those records but there are not LEGAL truths, and that’s what we’re talking about: LEGAL validity.

      And of course Hawaii maintains legally non-valid records. Why would they even have HRS 338-17 if they didn’t have any late and/or altered BC’s that they maintain?

      It actually doesn’t even matter why there are legally non-valid entries in the 1960-64 birth index. The point is that because there are legally non-valid records in the list we have no way of knowing whether Obama’s name is one of the valid ones or one of the non-valid ones. His name being on that list therefore says nothing about the LEGAL VALIDITY of his record.

      But I can tell you that the birth name for at least one other adopted child is not in that birth index, so if it was a computer “error” the computer treated some birth records differently than others – and computers only do what they are told to do.

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: