Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[kookbreaker]

Well of course he can't. You are being mean asking him to provide sources like that.

Let's be honest here, BaC knows he is lying. He is just trolling.

BAC either enjoys undermining the conservatives effort for the sake of a few cheap shots (ones that will backfire badly) or he truly believes this birther crap and is classic example of what I used to say on USENET: I could sympathize with the Libertarians a lot more if it weren't for the Libertarians.

 

[BenBurch]

Long ago, before photocopies, when you wanted a certified copy of a birth record, the clerk would take down a blank birth record, stamp "COPY" on it, and write out all the information longhand. Then the copy would be notarized to make it a certified copy.

So, no definition exists in law of a certified copy that does not allow that copy to be a transcription of the information made by an official empowered to do so.

Anybody who tells you otherwise is a fool or worse.

 

[A'isha]

Well, can you quote it? And don't forget the citation.

Okay.

The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.

"What he got, everybody got," said Fukino. "He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate."

[...]

But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.

"It's 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.

You're welcome.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Here's a great analysis and summary of the situation, folks.

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

I've already provided a link that debunks what you just posted. The person who wrote that ignored a big chunk of Hawaiian law. Here, I'll quote it for you:

§338-13 Certified copies. (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.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

Note the highlighted part. The only thing that is necessary for the certified copy to be legal and legit is for the CONTENTS to be copied. It is not a photocopy.


edit: ffs, how much more dishonest could the author of your link be? He is quoting relevant Hawaiian law, cites a portion from §338-13(a) and ignores §338-13(b) which debunks the entire premise of his article.

 

[BeAChooser]

But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.

It's 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.

All of which, as proven in post #2797, is a absolute lie. And no matter how many time you folks repeat the lie, it will still be a lie.

 

[A'isha]

All of which, as proven in post #2797, is a absolute lie. And no matter how many time you folks repeat the lie, it will still be a lie.

Only if you actually believe that a pseudonymous bither writing a bunch of unsupported crap on his Wordpress blog knows more about Hawaiian law regarding birth documentation than, y'know, Hawaiian state officials like the spokesperson for the state Attorney General and the recent director of the Department of Health.

But what self-respecting skeptic who's only interested in the truth (and not merely scrabbling at straws in order to support a preconceived partisan position) would do that?

So, have you found all those Hawaiians who have obtained certified copies of their "long form" original certificates post-2001 yet? You know, like you claim your pseudonymous blogger is right about, and Hawaii state officials are wrong about?

 

[kookbreaker]

All of which, as proven in post #2797, is a absolute lie.

No.

And no matter how many time you folks repeat the lie, it will still be a lie.

Sorry BAC, but BeAChooser: Soooooper Legal Genuis and his anonymous blogpals don't really hold much water in reality.

 

[BeAChooser]

The person who wrote that ignored a big chunk of Hawaiian law. Here, I'll quote it for you:

§338-13 Certified copies. (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.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

Note the highlighted [in yellow] part. The only thing that is necessary for the certified copy to be legal and legit is for the CONTENTS to be copied.

LOL! First, the author of what I linked addressed the issued of *content*. He did not ignore ANY chunk of Hawaiian law. It is you who is ignoring what the law says … as pointed out by that author. HRS 338-11 states

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.

And here is what the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics recommends as a minimum:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/hawaii-birth-certificate-requirements/

Hawaii Birth Certificate Requirements

“Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8, Section 1 (still in effect today) says: Certificates of vital statistics events are to be filled in by typewriter or in ink. If ink is used only permanent ink will be acceptable. All signatures are to be made with permanent ink. In all other respects, the certificates shall comply with provisions of Section 57-14, R.L.H. 1955.”

Section 57-14 (1955) says, “The form of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the United States Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the board. The form and use of such certificates shall be subject to the provisions of section 57-19 and 57-21. (R.L. 1945, s. 3100.15, add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 15.)”

At http://www.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/vital-statistics , it says, “In 1946 responsibility for collecting and publishing national vital statistics was transferred from the Census Bureau to the U.S. Public Health Service, first in the National Office of Vital Statistics and later (1960) in the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). In 1987 NCHS became part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

So what was the US Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics is now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Information regarding the current standard certificates is found at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vital_certificate_revisions.htm . The 2003 Standard Birth Certificate includes these items (found at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/FinalBirthSpecs3-24-2005.pdf ):

Now if you go look at the list of items in that last link, you will see that the current Hawaiian COLB does not contain "at minimum" (as required by law) all of those items. For example, the COLB should include the name of the hospital and the doctor's name ... i.e., two items that are on the "long form". So Hawaii is now clearly violating it's own law by calling the contents of the COLB all that's required. And Hawaii started violating it conveniently after Obama became president. Which begs the question … what are Hawaii's leaders and Obama so afraid of?

Also, for a certified copy to be legal and legit, it must contain ALL of the contents of the original, not just a select few. That is (by any definition of "is") the definition of "certified copy" that you will find repeated a million times, as I proved with just a few of those linked sources. If we let you folks get away with this perversion of the definition, next, you folks may be claiming that a certified copy only has to have the name of child to be legal and legit. And how patently ridiculous and self serving that would be.

And, by the way, perhaps ANTPogo should note the portioned I highlighted in red in the law that you quoted … before appealing to Wisch as an authority. His claim that "Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied" is such a transparent lie it should embarrass any of you who regurgitate it. But you can't be embarrassed, can you?

 

[A'isha]

So if that provision says what you and pseudonymous birther crackpot butterdezillion think it says, why haven't any Hawaiians actually been able to obtain certified copies of their long forms?

Where are the court cases over the past ten years filed by Hawaiians angry that the Hawaiian Department of Health is violating state law by refusing to issue what you and pseudonymous birther crackpot butterdezillion say they should have been issuing during the last decade?

 

[Unabogie]

http://teapartymaui.com/data/index.php

Question: I presume every last one of these folks hates President Obama. Why haven't they each ordered a "long form" and presented a stack of them?

BAC, care to answer this?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Also, for a certified copy to be legal and legit, it must contain ALL of the contents of the original, not just a select few.

Making up law again, Hmmm BAC?

 

[Newtons Bit]

LOL! First, the author of what I linked addressed the issued of *content*. He did not ignore ANY chunk of Hawaiian law. It is you who is ignoring what the law says … as pointed out by that author. HRS 338-11 states

And here is what the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics recommends as a minimum:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/hawaii-birth-certificate-requirements/

Now if you go look at the list of items in that last link, you will see that the current Hawaiian COLB does not contain "at minimum" (as required by law) all of those items. For example, the COLB should include the name of the hospital and the doctor's name ... i.e., two items that are on the "long form". So Hawaii is now clearly violating it's own law by calling the contents of the COLB all that's required.

This is the rule for the new long-forms, not the rules for what is required on certified copies. It can't be retroactive.

Do you really think that the law is going to require people to present birth certificates that state whether or not they were breast fed? Really? How would they make a "certified copy" for Obama that had such information on it? His original wouldn't state whether he was or not. Or if he was transfered to a separate facility, mothers pregnancy weight, or if the mother received WIC food. Does YOUR birth certificate contain that information?

How could you even possibly believe that is true? How gullible are you?

Legally, a state is only required to create an "authenticated copy" if the original is on record (and copy doesn't mean duplicate, please learn this). See 5 USC 301. That's the same law that allows the CDC to make the rules for new birth certificates.

And Hawaii started violating it conveniently after Obama became president. Which begs the question … what are Hawaii's leaders and Obama so afraid of?

JREF Forum Member Arus808 published his birth certificate in this very thread. that is dated 2006. It contains the exact same data fields that Obama's CoLB contains. So are you lying, or are did you read that on a conspiracy theory website and are too gullible to know it was complete ?

Given the above, I'm going to go with gullible. It's also worth a Stundie nomination.

Also, for a certified copy to be legal and legit, it must contain ALL of the contents of the original, not just a select few. That is (by any definition of "is") the definition of "certified copy" that you will find repeated a million times, as I proved with just a few of those linked sources. If we let you folks get away with this perversion of the definition, next, you folks may be claiming that a certified copy only has to have the name of child to be legal and legit. And how patently ridiculous and self serving that would be.

No it doesn't. Read the law again, slowly.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

There is nothing in that section that requires all contents to be copied. It merely states that information copied is the same, legally, as the original if it is certified.

And, by the way, perhaps ANTPogo should note the portioned I highlighted in red in the law that you quoted … before appealing to Wisch as an authority. His claim that "Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied" is such a transparent lie it should embarrass any of you who regurgitate it.

Please learn the definition of the word "may".

HRS 338-18(a) allows the Department of Health to make the rules on whether or not to release information. It is only required to release a certified copy by HRS 338-13(a). That means the Department of Health can choose to release "certified copies" that are type-written and don't contain all the information in the original and release nothing else.

But you can't be embarrassed, can you?

I can be embarrassed, but not be this. Everything you stated is false.

 

[Arus808]

edit: ffs, how much more dishonest could the author of your link be? He is quoting relevant Hawaiian law, cites a portion from §338-13(a) and ignores §338-13(b) which debunks the entire premise of his article.

butteredzillion is a known kook.

 

[Arus808]

JREF Forum Member Arus808 published his birth certificate in this very thread. that is dated 2006. It contains the exact same data fields that Obama's CoLB contains. So are you lying, or are did you read that on a conspiracy theory website and are too gullible to know it was complete ?

And since 1991, those fields are the only fields available on a Hawaii COLB

Here is a 2002 Request for a 1930 Record:

And in 2008 they renamed their form, so here is a 2010 request:

 

[BeAChooser]

HRS 338-18(a) allows the Department of Health to make the rules on whether or not to release information. It is only required to release a certified copy by HRS 338-13(a). That means the Department of Health can choose to release "certified copies" that are type-written and don't contain all the information in the original and release nothing else.

And that also means the Hawaiian DoH could choose to release certified copies that are photocopies of the long form and do contain all the information in the original. The law clearly permits that. It's a decision not to do it by Hawaiian bureaucrats. Nothing else. It's a decision made by those bureaucrats after Obama became president. What a coincidence. It's a decision to keep something that is in that long form from public view. Or to promote division in the country that the democrats, in their self-serving manner, think will benefit them politically. Any way you look at it, the law is clear. And you are wrong. You can repeat your lies till you are blue in the face, NB, but this issue is not going away. Because it's there in black and white. A lie is still a lie no matter how many times you tell it.

 

[Unabogie]

And that also means the Hawaiian DoH could choose to release certified copies that are photocopies of the long form and do contain all the information in the original. The law clearly permits that. It's a decision not to do it by Hawaiian bureaucrats. Nothing else. It's a decision made by those bureaucrats after Obama became president. What a coincidence. It's a decision to keep something that is in that long form from public view. Or to promote division in the country that the democrats, in their self-serving manner, think will benefit them politically. Any way you look at it, the law is clear. And you are wrong. You can repeat your lies till you are blue in the face, NB, but this issue is not going away. Because it's there in black and white. A lie is still a lie no matter how many times you tell it.

Aha, I see where this is going. By widening the conspiracy to include the entire state of Hawaii, you can wave away the thorny question of why Hawaiian birthers don't produce the document they demand of the President. Ingenious!

P.S. what could be on a birth certificate that would in any way matter to the president?

 

[A'isha]

And that also means the Hawaiian DoH could choose to release certified copies that are photocopies of the long form and do contain all the information in the original.

No, they can't. See, BAC, the statutes themselves aren't the be-all and end-all regarding the topic. The statutes merely say the what. The how is determined by regulations.

And the regulations aren't established and changed on a whim, either. They're discussed, voted on, and repealed through an administrative and legislative process. If the Director of Health wants something changed, he or she has to go through that entire process, even if the actual law itself isn't being changed in any way, shape, or form.

The law clearly permits that.

And you went to what law school, again?

It's a decision not to do it by Hawaiian bureaucrats. Nothing else. It's a decision made by those bureaucrats after Obama became president. What a coincidence.

Seven years before Obama became president, actually. Not so much of a coincidence after all.

It's a decision to keep something that is in that long form from public view. Or to promote division in the country that the democrats, in their self-serving manner, think will benefit them politically.

Yes, I'm sure that the McCain/Palin-supporting former Republican governor of the state at the time of the election totally participated in the illegal denying of long-form certificates to Hawaiian-born citizens because of the political benefit.

Is there anyone in the State of Hawaii's government, Democrat or Republican, who isn't in on this conspiracy to illegally conceal Obama's long form, BAC?

Anyone at all?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347

Images of two 1961 Hawaii birth certificates similar to the one President Obama purportedly has on file have now been unveiled.

The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.

The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby.

… snip …

A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

The middle figure in Obama's purported registration also is different than the Nordykes'. Obama's is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes' is merely 61.

One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.

Another possibility is that Obama's number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.

… snip …

It's not just Obama's original birth certificate at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

 

[BeAChooser]

P.S. what could be on a birth certificate that would in any way matter to the president?

Reread the thread, since that question has already been addressed.

 

[Sabrina]

He has yet to answer that question, Unabogie.

See, birthers seem to think that there is something on the "long form" that will prove somehow that President Obama is ineligible to be president, despite the fact that he met all Constitutional requirements to be the president AS CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (i.e. the highest court in the land, BaC).

I want one birther, just one, to explain to me why, when each Presidential candidate is required to have their eligibility reviewed by SCOTUS in order to determine if they CAN run for President, not one Supreme Court justice refused to certify President Obama as capable of running. Not. One. Explain that please; can't be a Democratic conspiracy after all, since at the time IIRC, the majority of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents.