Main Menu

Why don’t you just ask?

There are no shortage of newspaper articles with statements like this:

“Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records,” said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health. “I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law.”

If Okubo actually said this, she was mistaken. Hawaiian law, while not allowing disclosure of birth records, is fully able to verify them. [Edited to add: I am not really doubting that Okubo said this. I am simply allowing for the possibility that she was misquoted so as not focus any criticism on her. The point is that there is a widespread believe that Hawaii will not verify vital records, and I question that.]

According to §338-14.3, one may obtain “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.” In short, they’ll verify anything you already know.

While obtaining a birth certificate requires a tangible interest, the requirements specified in §338-18(g)(5) for obtaining a verification are much looser, even to the point of allowing a request from

an individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

You can’t do this over the phone. You must submit a request and pay a $5 fee. They don’t accept checks.

Update: In 2012 two secretaries of state, from Arizona and Kansas, requested such a verification and received. An attorney in the case of Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party also received one.

, , , , ,

29 Responses to Why don’t you just ask?

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm #

    Dr. Orly TaitzRobert Stevens in an article entitled O-bot central on Natural Born Citizen…Orly? replied to the above article (copied without attribution) by saying:

    Absolutely amazing, the lies that they are willing to tell to protect their “Messiah”. First, any direct quote attributed to Okubo in a newspaper that appears to bolster the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii, particularly when taken out of context or otherwise mischaracterized, they accept verbatim, no questions asked. When Okubo is quoted stating that she cannot confirm or deny that Obama was born in Hawaii, immediately they doubt the quote.

    Interesting, huh? They only trust quotes from Okubo if they can be possibly construed to imply that Okubo has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. All other reported quotes from Okubo are immediately suspect and must be falsehoods, according to the Obama apologists.

    Have you called the Hawaiian Health Department and asked about Obama’s birthplace? I have. Several others have. And everyone is given the same reply, which is essentially the same as the Okubo quote above.

    I invite you to try it if you doubt me. Call the Hawaiian Health Department. Ask if they will tell you where Barack Obama was born. Ask anything you like about his official records and see if they will tell you anything or send you anything. Call (808) 586-4533 or send email to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov.

    As for verifying anything someone already knows, for 5 dollars, I think you would have a hard time getting official documents from the Hawaiian Health Department confirming the birthplace of Barack Obama, wherever it is (Kenya, Hawaii, or someplace else). After all, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on both sides of this issue in lawyers’ fees and court costs and other expenses on just this very question. Many many requests for Obama’s birth documents have been made by lawyers, by private citizens, by authors, and by private investigators. All were turned down. Subpoenas from several courts in other states for the records have been sent to the Hawaiian Health Department. All were turned down.

    If this material was as easy to obtain as the writer claims, people would not have wasted so much time, money and effort to get ahold of the documents.

    And if there was not something to hide, Barack Obama would not have spent so much time and money and effort trying to prevent anyone else from getting ahold of the documents.

    You are really so sure you want to take such an indefensible position? It is beyond ludicrous to think that all anyone would have to do is ask for the documents and pay 5 dollars (in person of course; not over the phone).

    If the writer of this post on the other blog feels it is so easy to get ahold of Obama’s officially certified birth records, I challenge him to do it. I can even give him the name of a Private Investigator in Hawaii who will appear in person and pay the five dollars if the writer does not want to fly to Hawaii and do it himself. Do it and shut me up. You will also be famous forever for doing it. Show that those who are behind the two dozen lawsuits are all misguided fools. Demonstrate once and for all that the Obama Eligibility Controversy has been created by conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats. Put up or shut up.

    If you are able to produce an officially signed, certified, notarized document from the Hawaiian Health Department, together with an official signed letter, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and providing enough detail that this can be verified independently, then I will gladly concede. I and most others will just walk away, even though Obama might still not be a “natural born citizen” according to the strict historical and legal definition.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm #

    Now this is an unusual argument coming from the Dr. Orly Taitz the Orly blog, an appeal to plausibility. The central part of the argument is distilled in this paragraph:

    If this material was as easy to obtain as the writer claims, people would not have wasted so much time, money and effort to get ahold of the documents.

    That’s a very powerful argument and it makes a lot of sense. And perhaps the most plausible conclusion is that I’m wrong.

    Nevertheless I will offer these possibilities:

    1. No one, to my knowledge, has ever approached the State with a request for a Verification in Lieu of a Certified Copy.

    2. While I am not an attorney, the law seems clear that they are available.

    If one calls the Hawaii Health Department, they will not give you any information. Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether a properly submitted application under §338-14.3 will be granted.

    The issue is easily resolved. I mailed in an application for the Verfication in Lieu along with a photocopy of my Drivers License and a money order for $5 a couple weeks ago. The state web site says to allow 5-7 weeks for processing. I will either get the letter back or I will get a refusal.

    Under the statute, the State might reasonably refuse me, denying my claim to be an “organization”. So as a backup, yesterday I emailed a reporter at the Honolulu Advertiser suggesting that one of them might want to take $5 down to the office and see how that might work. The newspaper is obviously an organization and I cannot see any grounds for them to be denied. I’ve already blown my private investigator budget narrowing down the identity of Ron Polarik (just joking).

    If I am totally wrong (and frankly it does seem too good to be true), you will see a copy of the denial letter from Hawaii featured here. I did hesitate about publishing this article, not because I might have been wrong, but because I wouldn’t want the State of Hawaii to be inundated with $5 money orders from people asking for verification when it wouldn’t work.

    But really Dr. OrlyMr. Stevens, calling someone a liar would be libel if they weren’t a public figure (New York Times v. Sullivan) as I’m sure you know.

    Dr. OrlyRobert Stevens said:

    You are really so sure you want to take such an indefensible position?

    I take positions, rather than just repeating someone else’s rumors. If I’m wrong, I’m out $5. If I’m right a lot of people are going to look pretty foolish. The odds are against me, but the reward would be oh so sweet. (I’ve already gotten $5 in fun from it already.)

  3. avatar
    Hitandrun December 29, 2008 at 4:01 pm #

    Once again, admin, the poster on Orly’s blog you’re crossing swords with is not Dr Taitz herself but “Robert Stevens”. Got it?

    Hitandrun

  4. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm #

    Robert Stevens seems to be Dr. Orly’s “Zampolit” or political officer. He’s fond of making strawman arguements and then not allowing anyone to refute them.

    Dr. Orly’s site is more and more a greek choir, not allowing anyone to dispute their more and more insane claims.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2008 at 7:19 pm #

    Patrick, there seems to be a strong correlation between how far out a web site gets and whether they allow unfiltered criticism. It was a mistake and a distraction for me to get involved on Dr. Orly’s web site and my brief sojourn FreeRepublic.com (where I am now banned).

  6. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 1, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    Controlling the flow of infomration is a cult 101 tactic which all these sites emply to isolate their followers. If the info does not come from one of the leaders or is not approved by them, it is never believed, despite original sources and indisputable proof of a claim. This is the only way to keep the money rolling in- it is very “Jim Jones” of them. What these people desperately need is deprogramming! And, I wish I could say I was joking, but it truly is that serious.

  7. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    I have posted several things over (Orly/Robert) there but haven’t been “banned” yet, although I think what I just posted might get the job done. LOL They consider anyone who doesn’t agree with them a “distraction.”

    This is suppose to make us “see the light.”

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/please-watch-this-video-and-forwrd-to.html#links

    Thursday, January 1, 2009
    Please watch this video and forwrd to everybody
    Thursday, January 1, 2009 10:49 AM
    From: “Carole Richard” Add sender to Contacts To: dr_taitz@yahoo.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
    Posted by Orly Taitz, DDS Esq. at 1:05 PM

  8. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    So now we have their whole absurd argument in a seven minute video. I love that the video conveniently neglected to cite the “law” which requires both parents to be US citizens in order for one to be natural. They tell us in no uncertain terms that this “is the law” but seem to feel no need to show us where the heck any statute or current controlling case law says as much.

    What has always struck me as odd is the following. As per my understanding, SCOTUS had never defined, in any prior decision, what exactly the phrase “natural born citizen” requires in relation to presidential eligibility. Now, if indeed all their dreams were to come true and SCOTUS ever did get to hearing the natural born citizen issue (I am rather confident this will never happen, BTW), I would think SCOTUS will opt for a more broad definition of the phrase (thereby validating Obama’s eligibility) rather than a more narrow one. This leads me to believe that either the people filing these suits 1)have never thought this through to the final endgame, or 2)are simply riding this money train for as long as they can and could actually care less about the issue.

    I suspect my latter theory is the case here.

  9. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Funny you should bring this up. I just got through reading this on a blog:

    Carlyle replies:Today, 10:44:34 PM“We need to remember something very important. Some of you seem to have a black and white view of this. You know that BHO is not a NBC, even by his own self-legend, so that is the simple end of it. But let me provide two cautions.

    1. NBC is at least a little open to interpretation. While it is pretty clear that neither congress or anyone else can pass a law to confer NBC (hence the utter stupidity of SR511), but the USSC could legally decide a very broad definition. They could argue from original sources as well as their view of a “living constitution” and that fear of foreign influence is no longer the big issue in modern global society. Therefore leading to the weakest possible definition of NBC – one wide enough to include Obama.

    2. Then there is the issue of magnitude of crime. You legal experts may cringe – ineligible is ineligible. But for the rest of us, living in the real world of everyday pushing and shoving, there are degrees of evil. Failure to meet NBC requirements would be viewed as a relatively minor infraction by most people. But failure to be a US Citizen is HUGE in anybody’s reckoning.

    Hence, it is absolutely crucial that both of these avenues be researched to their final conclusion.

  10. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 1, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    I wonder how long it will take them to ban “Carlyle” from the blog? Hmmm.

  11. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 1, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    Bogus:
    On which blog did “Caryle’s” comment appear?

  12. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 6:18 pm #

    Doc Orley’s under Obama didn’t meet burden of proof as I recall.

    Read these and give me your interpretation:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html

  13. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 1, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    Bogus:

    I truly think the Birthers would end up wildly disappointed if SCOTUS were to ever take up this issue. Clearly they would come to a broad interpretation, at least broad enough to follow existing codified law. I do not think it will matter, as I have heard some argue, that the statutes do not use the identical “natural born citizen” language.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    Oh I think Carlyle is in no danger of being banned. He’s stirring the pot and that’s what they want. Uncertainty is the goal, not doctrinal purity.

    Senate resolution 511 is a consensus from the Senate about their understanding of “natural born citizen”. It’s not law but to have every Senator agree on the point is important. It’s just unfortunate that no one in the Senate thought Obama’s case was in any doubt whatsoever, and so didn’t include his situation in their resolution.

    Hindsight, as they say.

  15. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    Actually, seems like I did see an article where a broader definition was introduced but got shot down–however, that might have just been propaganda.

    The Senate was only following the existing law regarding John McCain, I don’t think it is exactly how they all think. John McCain’s issue is a technicality. But, if Obama were born in Kenya–his would be too.

    I think most people believe that if you were born in America, then you are a natural born citizen. But, then, maybe not. The links I posted sure seem to think so.

    I see the term native (citizen at birth) and natural as the same where those on the anti-Obama site do not. They see three classes of citizens–natural, native (citizen at birth) and naturalized.

    I think Obama’s Mother being the one that is the citizen is very signficant because of this:

    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    As I’ve said before, it would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    There is a bill called the “Natural Born Citizen Act” that has come up a few times since 2004 that attempts to define “natural born citizen” totally. It has never been voted on probably because of the (B) section [see below].

    As I read the law, Ann Dunham did not have sufficient residency in the United States prior to Barack’s birth to pass citizenship to her son. That is, if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, he would not be a citizen, natural or otherwise.

    Text of the proposed Natural Born Citizen Act:

    A BILL

    To define the term `natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act’.

    SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means–

    (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

    (2) any person born outside the United States–

    (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

    (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

    (b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2009 at 12:05 am #

    I’ve just published an article on the video.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    I don’t think any of the lawsuits were crafted to come to trial; they are too badly argued.

  19. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 5:52 am #

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-help-in-research-needed.html

    Read above. Is Doc Orly really a lawyer?

  20. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 6:03 am #

    As I read the law, Ann Dunham did not have sufficient residency in the United States prior to Barack’s birth to pass citizenship to her son. That is, if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, he would not be a citizen, natural or otherwise.

    This is where SR511 might come back to haunt them. IF Obama were found to be born in Keyna, Ann Dunham lacked very little time meeting those qualifications/requirements–same as John McCain’s technicality. And was changed at a later date to where Ann/Obama would meet the requirements.

    Although SR511 was a non-binding resolution, the gist of the action was that Congress, if the need arose, would pass an Amendment at a later date. SR511 was just a show of support for John McCain. Now, that is how I interpreted the article.

    Both were technicalities of law. Sure would open a big can of worms if Congress did not show the same support for Obama as they did McCain don’t you think?

  21. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 7:02 am #

    Do you happen to have a link to the proposed Natural Born Citizen Act?

  22. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 7:22 am #

    Here is a comment on the article by Doc Orly.

    THE PLAINTIFF replies:Today, 2:18:16 AM“IT APPEAR THE BO HAS MADE A VERY SERIOUS ERROR ON 10 DECEMEBR, 2008 WHEN HIS THUGS FORGOT THE RULES OF THE US SUPREME COURT THAT WERE MY ADVOCATES IN 23 PLUS FEDERAL OUT OF COURT AGREEMENTS OF 2004.
    OBAMA IS BEHIND TE FIASCO THAT FELL ON THE US POST SERVICE FOR 35 FIGURES, BECAUSE HE USED THE US POSTAL SERIVE TO THREATNE ME, THE PLAINTIFF. WHICH IS A BIG NO NO , SINCE HE WAS BARRED BY THE US SUPREME COURT X-PARTE, ALS0 THE FOLLOWING CONTRACT TO KILL ME AND MY FAMILY AND ALL WHO KNEW OF THESE LAWSUITS AND THE AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE GETTING RID OF ME AND THE ENTIRE US SUPREME COURT, WOULD FALL ON BO AND HIS THUGS.
    GUESS WHERE BO STOLE ALL THOSE FUNDS TO GET ELECTED SENATOR AND THEN PRESIDENT THAT HE REFUSES TO DISCLOSE? STOLEN FROM A RESTICTED US TREASURY ACCOUNT THAT EVEN BUSH GOT CAUGHT TRYING TO STEAL FROM IN 2007.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    Yes, Dr. Orly Taitz is a graduate of the William Howard Taft distance learning program and was admitted to the California bar.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    I’m having trouble following the reasoning.

  25. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:43 am #

    Thanks.

  26. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    It appears to me that “Plantiff” is representing himself as:

    Kenneth L. Conner – a real estate and commercial credit analyst at the Mutual Bank Corp. in Chicago- whistleblower

  27. avatar
    milspec June 20, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    I think reading that gave me a brain tumor.