Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well since Hawaii's law clearly states that Obama could get his long form copied and released if he wanted to, and none of you actually want to address that fact, why not?

Its been addressed & you keep running.

You're the one running, Redtail. From these posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7081074&postcount=2507

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7083011&postcount=2554

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7083946&postcount=2572

Once again, here's the law:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

In other words, this law and rules adopted by the DoH govern what can or cannot be released. Not your imagination.

The law continues:

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(1) The registrant;

In other words, the registrant has the right to inspect and obtain a "certified copy" of a public health statistics record if he/she requests. And Obama is the registrant in question.

Furthermore, the former head of the DoH stated that (http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf )

I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.
"

So Obama's long form exists, the DoH knows where it is located, and the DoH sees no difference between the way the long form should be handled from any other vital record.

So there simply is no basis to the claim that Hawaii cannot release a certified copy of the long form to Obama if he requests it. :D

Edit: And by the way, the lawsuit to get Obama's long form copied and released was dismissed on the grounds that the person who filed the suit did not have a "direct and tangible interest" in the document. Those grounds would not apply were Obama to make the request. By law, he has a "direct and tangible" interest in the document. This too was pointed out earlier in this thread and simply ignored by you folks. :D
 
Last edited:
The COLB, you know the computer generated one, it is a certified copy under the laws of Hawaii. It is all that they are required to give, and all the is legally required to prove citizenship.
 
The COLB, you know the computer generated one, it is a certified copy under the laws of Hawaii. It is all that they are required to give, and all the is legally required to prove citizenship.

I quoted the law and the statement of the head of the DoH. You're just repeating a lie and no matter how many times you folks repeat it, it won't be true. It will still be a lie. :)
 
Less flooding and more copies you allege anyone can get, BAC. It should be easy to prove what you claim.
 
You're the one running, Redtail. From these posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7081074&postcount=2507

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7083011&postcount=2554

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7083946&postcount=2572

Once again, here's the law:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm



In other words, this law and rules adopted by the DoH govern what can or cannot be released. Not your imagination.

The law continues:



In other words, the registrant has the right to inspect and obtain a "certified copy" of a public health statistics record if he/she requests. And Obama is the registrant in question.

Furthermore, the former head of the DoH stated that (http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf )



So Obama's long form exists, the DoH knows where it is located, and the DoH sees no difference between the way the long form should be handled from any other vital record.

So there simply is no basis to the claim that Hawaii cannot release a certified copy of the long form to Obama if he requests it. :D

Edit: And by the way, the lawsuit to get Obama's long form copied and released was dismissed on the grounds that the person who filed the suit did not have a "direct and tangible interest" in the document. Those grounds would not apply were Obama to make the request. By law, he has a "direct and tangible" interest in the document. This too was pointed out earlier in this thread and simply ignored by you folks. :D

If:D I:D use:D Smilies:D

CAN YOU POST ANY EVIDENCE!?!?! Seriously, what is with you?
 
I quoted the law and the statement of the head of the DoH. You're just repeating a lie and no matter how many times you folks repeat it, it won't be true. It will still be a lie. :)

So, by your completely unqualified reading of the Hawaii state code, you think it means that anyone can request a certified copy of their long form birth certificate even now.

Officials of the state of Hawaii, from the Attorney General on down to the director of the Department of Health, disagree with your interpretation of the law, and say the exact opposite.

And your reaction is not that your poor layman's reading of the law may be faulty, but that all those state officials are either wrong or lying?

If they're wrong or lying, how come the only copies of what you claim is legally obtainable have been provided by either people showing uncertified photocopies or people who have lied numerous times?

Is Hawaii in on the fix, to protect Obama? Are they denying legally-obtainable documents to all their citizens, not just Obama, just to keep up the charade? And if they are, how come they were denying these documents even before Obama declared his intention to run, much less was elected? Did they start in on the conspiracy early on in 2001, just on on the off chance that Obama might decide to run for the presidency two election cycles in the future?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm the one who is lying. :rolleyes: It couldn't be because your reading of the law is actually incorrect in that you refuse to accept that legally the computer generated COLB is a certified copy under the law and all that anyone can currently attain.

Your inability to provide any contradictory evidence that doesn't come from known conspiracy theory websites is rather telling. Why is that, hmmmm? :D
 
Last edited:
False. Here we go again. The law quite clearly states, as anyone who can read English can see, that the Department of Health can issue a "certified copy" of "any" record for an applicant with a "direct and tangible interest in the record". And it lists "the registrant" as a person considered to have a "direct and tangible interest". Thus, Obama should be able to get a certified "copy" of "any record" in the DoH's possession. That would naturally include the so-called "long form" for Obama, which the head of the DoH has said exists because she's looked at it twice (and therefore knows where it is located). She has also identified the "long form" as a document that would be treated no differently than any other vital record, in a quote I cited as well. So I simply don't understand how you can continue to lie so blatantly in the face of the documented facts. But then I rarely comprehend the *reasoning* of leftists now days. :D

The "certified copy" is the copy he has already released.
 
False. Here we go again. The law quite clearly states, as anyone who can read English can see, that the Department of Health can issue a "certified copy" of "any" record for an applicant with a "direct and tangible interest in the record". And it lists "the registrant" as a person considered to have a "direct and tangible interest". Thus, Obama should be able to get a certified "copy" of "any record" in the DoH's possession. That would naturally include the so-called "long form" for Obama, which the head of the DoH has said exists because she's looked at it twice (and therefore knows where it is located). She has also identified the "long form" as a document that would be treated no differently than any other vital record, in a quote I cited as well. So I simply don't understand how you can continue to lie so blatantly in the face of the documented facts. But then I rarely comprehend the *reasoning* of leftists now days. :D

No. I've written a post about it on my blog that looks at the Hawaiian law. The "certified copy" is not a photocopy or duplicate. It's a copy of the contents. That is what the law requires a "certified copy" to be and it is all the law requires the state to give. The Department of Health is not required by law to give anything other than a copy of the data.
 
I've written a post about it on my blog[/URL] that looks at the Hawaiian law. The "certified copy" is not a photocopy or duplicate. It's a copy of the contents.

LOL! Now you folks are even trying to pervert the definition of "certified copy" to hide Obama's background. Talk about desperation. :rolleyes:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Certified+Copy

Certified Copy - A photocopy of a document, judgment, or record that is signed and attested to as an accurate and a complete reproduction of the original document by a public official in whose custody the original has been placed for safekeeping.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/certified-copy.html

certified copy - Reproduction of a document or record, authenticated by the issuing authority or a competent third-party (such as a notary public) as a true facsimile of the original.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/certified-copy-term.html

certified copy - A copy of a document issued by a court or government agency guaranteed to be a true and exact copy of the original. Many agencies and institutions require certified copies of legal documents before permitting certain transactions. For example, a certified copy of a death certificate is required before a bank will release the funds in a deceased person's payable-on-death account to the person who has inherited them.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/certified-copy/

Certified Copy Law & Legal Definition - Certified copy is a duplicate of an original document which is certified as an exact reproduction by the officer responsible for issuing or keeping the original. The person who issued or is keeping the original affirms or swears that the copy and the original have been compared and that the copy is an exact reproduction of the original. This is also called an attested copy or verified copy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_copy

A certified copy is a copy (often a photocopy) of a primary document, that has on it an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the primary document. It does not certify that the primary document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the primary document.

http://www.aonmastertrust.com.au/pdf/legi_cert_copy_0710.pdf

AUSTRAC has released AML/CTF Rules Amendment Instrument 2009 (No. 4), dated 20 August 2009, which amends the definitions of 'certified copy' and 'certified extract' contained in Chapter 1 of the AML/CTF Rules.

… snip ...

According to the amended rules, a certified copy means a document that has been certified as a true copy of an original document by one of the following persons:

http://www.law-glossary.com/definition/certified-copy.html

certified copy - a document which is certified as being exactly the same in content as the original
http://legaldefinition.us/certified-copy.html

Certified copy: A copy of a document issued by a court or government agency guaranteed to be a true and exact copy of the original.

And I could go on and on and on and on and on providing links that say EXACTLY the same thing.

:D
 
Blah blah blah. If what you say is true then dozens of Hawaii Birthers should be able to produce copies of their own forms. You're trying to bog everyone down on minutia when the people who wrote and enforce the law don't agree with you.

Show us some of these copies. Then you can tell us what the law says.
 
I'm still blown away by BAC's last link where they claim, with no proof at all, that President Obama was adopted. It's like they assume it as fact at this point. Teabaggers are very strange people.
 



And yet, in none of that do you include the definition as used in the actual Hawaiian law.

You know, the definition that has actual legal weight?
 
I do love what is at the bottom of the first link.

Disclaimer
All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.
*

Yeah...so again...the computer generated COLB is a certified copy under the law and that will remain the same no matter how many Internet sources you find that claim it has to be a photocopy.

By the way BaC your second source actually confirms our point.

This site provides information about the law designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation

That is the disclaimer on your third site. Is it possible you could be wrong? No it isn't possible....it is a fact.

The fourth link is just more of the same, which isn't actually true because the computer generated COLB is a certified copy under the law. :D

Your Wikipedia link actually disproved you. :D You should really read the whole link before posting it. :D All the lurkers have now switched sides due to your bad research and sourcing. :D

Your PDF source also has a disclaimer, and even so it still doesn't conflict with the certified fact that the COLB provided by President elect of the United States Obama is a legal certified copy. :D

We make no guarantees as to the accuracy, thoroughness or quality of the information, and are not responsible for errors or omissions.

Is it possible you are wrong, and grasping at straws? :D

Of course you are because the links you have provided aren't even discussing birth certificates....look at the tags on your last link.

All that effort to prove absolutely nothing. :D
 
Last edited:
Here's a great analysis and summary of the situation, folks.

http://butterdezillion.files.wordpr...efusal-to-issue-certified-copies-of-long1.pdf

According to a recent report and an interview reported by Michael Isikoff, the Hawaii government is now claiming that not even Barack Obama himself could make a copy of his long-form birth certificate, much less get a certified copy. What I will document here is that Hawaii law REQUIRES ALL the records the HDOH has for a person to be available for inspection and copying, and that certified copies of the entire birth certificate – including even the confidential medical portion – are required to be issued when the registrant or anybody named on the certificate specifically requests it.

For the last 2+ years (BAC - now isn't that convenient?) the HDOH has been claiming they won’t issue certified copies of long-form birth certificates, but there is a video clip and there are certified copies of long-forms issued during that time proving that what they said publicly and what everybody in HI knew was really happening were two different things. They HAVE been issuing certified long-form birth certificates.

… snip … Not only has [Obama] refused to disclose it, but he has spent his own, taxpayers’, and concerned citizens’ money in court cases where he has argued he shouldn’t have to disclose his long-form because it would be so “embarrassing” to him. He allowed a decorated military surgeon and veteran, Lt Col Terry Lakin, to go to jail and lose probably at least $3 million in savings, career wages, and retirement benefits rather than simply disclose his long-form.

Now, after 2 years of ridiculing “birthers” and sending Lakin to jail, the HDOH Director who replaced Neal Palafox (after Abercrombie, Janice Okubo, and the Attorney General’s Office did a hit-job to cover that Abercrombie asked him to resign) has decided to change the policies so they can say that Obama CAN’T disclose his long-form because he can’t even GET a copy of his long-form.

The problem for them is two-fold:

1) that doesn’t explain why Obama wouldn’t disclose the documents when the HDOH was still issuing certified copies of long-forms or why he won’t disclose it in COURT, where a subpoena or judge’s order overrides the routine policies of the HDOH Director.


2)The policies they are implementing right now are illegal, and actually reveal that they are so desperate to cover for Obama that they will even break laws to give him an excuse he can use to the Average Joe who reads articles like Isikoff’s. This is the HDOH Director and the HI Attorney General’s office, breaking the laws to cover for Obama in full view of everyone. What follows are the laws and rules they are violating:

1. The standard birth certificate has to include everything recommended by the CDC.
HRS 338-11 says:

The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health.

Anything that is called a “birth certificate” has to include AT LEAST all the information recommended by the CDC. In 1961 the Hawaii DOH used the NCHS/CDC’s recommended birth certificate verbatim, as can be seen by viewing the standard birth certificate on page 228 of the PDF here.

(The HDOH has been trying to waffle on what is on their
“birth certificate” for some time, claiming that what is on the COLB is all their birth certificates have today, but that violates the law since the CDC currently recommends much more than that.
It was while they were trying to not have to answer how the COLB complies with HRS 338-11 that Fukino asked the legislature to pass the “Vexatious Requester Bill” so she wouldn’t have to respond to requests she considers a nuisance, and could blacklist people who reported their law violations to the OIP or Ombudsman.)

2. All requests by those authorized by HRS 338-16 through 338- 18 to receive either copies or abstracts MUST be fulfilled. (Note the word “SHALL”.) Unless disclosure is forbidden by the laws or rules the request as made must be fulfilled. HRS 338-13 says:

(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

Contrary to the claims of the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office, that statute specifically allows photocopies:

© Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

3. HRS 338-18(a) only forbids disclosures that are not authorized by the rules or by HRS 338-18. HRS 338-18(a) says:

(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

4. HRS 338-18b allows those with a direct and tangible interest (including the registrant and his/her relatives, among others) to receive a CERTIFIED COPY OF PUBLIC HEALTH STATISTICS RECORDS. HRS 338-1 defines “public health statistics records” thusly:

"Public health statistics" includes the registration, preparation, transcription, collection, compilation, and preservation of data pertaining to births, adoptions, legitimations, deaths, fetal deaths, morbidity, marital status, and data incidental thereto.

And UIPA (HRS 92F-3) defines “government records” thusly:

"Government record" means information maintained by an agency in
written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.

The registration of a birth, in written form, is clearly a “public health statistics record”. A certified copy of that paper document is discloseable to anybody with a direct and tangible interest.

5. The DOH Administrative Rules (start at page 19 of the PDF here ) distinguish between the standard birth certificate and the abstract of CONTENT from the birth certificate (“abbreviated birth certificate”, now commonly called the short-form or CertificaTION of Live Birth/COLB). Anybody who requests it is authorized to receive a non-certified copy of a COLB, but only those with a direct and tangible interest are allowed to receive a certified copy of either the COLB or the standard birth certificate.

The rules specifically say that the confidential medical portion of the standard birth certificate will not be released UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED. “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b, 2.4(B)(d) says:

(d) Confidential information. Information contained in the section headed “Confidential Information for Medical and Health Use Only” or other similar designation shall not be included on a standard certified copy unless specifically requested by an individual named on the certificate or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Disclosure of the Confidential Medical Portion – even more information than the normal long-form contains - is not forbidden by either HRS 338-18b or the DOH Administrative Rules. Because access to this information is not restricted, it is REQUIRED to be disclosed upon request by someone with a direct and tangible interest.

6.Hawaii’s “Uniform Information Practices Act” (UIPA, or HRS 92F) specifically gives individuals access to government- maintained records about them. HRS 92F-21 (seen in context here ) says:

[§92F-21] Individual's access to own personal record. Each agency that maintains any accessible personal record shall make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains, in a reasonably prompt manner and in a reasonably intelligible form. Where necessary the agency shall provide a translation into common terms of any machine readable code or any code or abbreviation employed for internal agency use

That access includes the right to make copies or to have copies made for them. HRS 92F-11 says:

[§92F-11] Affirmative agency disclosure responsibilities. (a) All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.

Except as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours
; provided that an agency shall not be required to make government records available or respond to a person's subsequent duplicative request, if... ... (d) Each agency shall assure reasonable access to facilities for duplicating records and for making memoranda or abstracts.

In view of all this, look at the wanton lies of Joshua Wisch, former Howard Dean campaign manager who is now the spokesman for HI’s attorney general, as reported by Isikoff:

"It's (the original long-form birth certificate – ed) a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

Summary: In a desperate, vain attempt to put the “Why doesn’t Obama just disclose his long form?” horse back in the stall after 2+ years of that horse galloping all over the country, the Hawaii government has decided within the past few weeks (since Trump raised the visibility of the issue) to openly break their vital records and open records laws – denying everybody else their lawful right to access their own records and get certified long-forms as required for a variety of legal purposes, all to cover for Obama’s refusal to simply show the long-form that supposedly has the same information as what he has already disclosed publicly.

:D
 
How about you provide some examples of the copies that follow your definition that people got from the state of Hawaii first.
Well of course he can't. You are being mean asking him to provide sources like that. :p

Let's be honest here, BaC knows he is lying. He is just trolling.
 
So if all that is accurate, why don't some birther folks in Hawaii provide their own copies of the Long-Form. Sounds like it should be easy to get. What's the problem? Anything else is just words and some bozo blogger's opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom